Hello Everyone:
Following are resources for your Week 11 Blog Posts.
Thiele,
pp. 142-167
Worldwatch,
pp. 113-153
Ishmael, through Chapter 12Please note that your initial and response posts are due midnight (not noon) on Thursday the 5th.
Good luck!
“More people are defining themselves first and foremost through how they consume and are striving to own or use ever more stuff, whether in fashion, food, travel, electronics, or countless other products and services.” (Worldwatch 113)
ReplyDeleteI found this quote very interesting because I agree completely that our culture is dominated by consumerism nowadays. The way in which people define themselves is by the things that they own. The more up-to-date technology or fashion you own, the more affluent you appear. As we talked about in class, however, producing more and more consumer goods is not a part of a sustainable lifestyle. Instead of striving to attain the most current products, we should be reusing or repurposing the things we already own. Therefore, this proves an issue of human dignity because as we consume more and more, we are undermining the earth for future generations. In what ways do you think we can combat this unsustainable movement toward consumerism?
Natalie,
DeleteI agree with you that our society is obsessed with consumerism. People are overwhelmed by the sheer number of things that are available to be bought and used just because they feel that they must buy them- whether their reasoning be that these "things" will better their lives or make them easier, or that they will themselves become an obsolete part of society if their stuff is not up to date. I think that these unsustainable practices of buying and consuming at an unnecessarily rapid rate can be combated first and foremost through education. Many people are unaware as to what extent their practices are destroying the environment, and I feel that if this information was more widely available, people would be encouraged to adopt more sustainable practices.
The most effective approach to finding a solution to a problem is to expose the root of it. A fascinating aspect of Ernest Becker’s, “The Denial of Death”, lied in the correlation he found between human behavior and action with the repressed fear of dying. One way people attempt to immortalize themselves is through the accumulation of physical objects that hold some amount of worth. This is both a desperate attempt to grasp onto all the physical possessions that they can while they are here and a way for them to ensure that they will leave something of worth behind when they are gone. This is a flaw in human condition that has manifested itself into a global issue, forcing us to reap the repercussions of overconsumption. The irony lies in the fact that by attempting to outlive death, it not only causes more death and destruction on the planet now, but also inhibits future generations of life to flourish. Only when we realize this and alter the way humans view death, will it shed light on the possibility of a new healthy and sustainable life.
DeleteOne powerful way we can combat consumerism is through social pressure. Many people feel the need to buy new things because of the social status that it in turn brings them. However, if society instills a notion that "everyone else is acting sustainable," then many people will begin to follow in these footsteps. At first, the movement may begin with the easily influenced and then the early majority, but once the tipping point happens the rest of society will in effect be brought along for the ride. Peer pressure is powerful. Utilizing it for good is even more powerful. The question is: how?
Delete“Obesity is just one manifestation of the ills of overconsumption, to which we could add urban sprawl, traffic, air pollution from automobiles and factories, and dependence on a growing number of pharmaceutical drugs like anti-depressants.” Pg. 114 Worldwatch
ReplyDeleteThis statement points out to us a few of the major side effects of the current capitalist ideology and how dangerous it is. Places that are prized in capitalist values, such as major cities in America, all have too much traffic, pollution, obesity, and drug dependence. This is because success is displayed by overconsuming resources, everyone wants to have a nice car that the whole family can fit in, or to eat out and eat until they are full so they consume more food, then fight the mental symptoms caused by overworking to gain more resources via medication. This unsustainable way of going about life and having very unsustainable goals leads to all these and more problems, and in the end lowers human dignity. When the money becomes more important than our own happiness and health we sacrifice those things, so if we are fat, sick, slow, depressed slops our environment will reflect. How can we help the environment when we don’t even know how to help ourselves, the solution most people think of is more money but when that makes the situation worse what is to be done?
I agree with a lot of the points you make. Evolution has hardwired us to consume as many calories and hoard as many resources as we can. Back when we were still a part of the food chain humans still had to do as much as they could to survive. Nowadays the first world's middle class really doesn't have this issue of finding food and resources, at least not at micro level. Now that humans are a force beyond what the planet has ever experienced, we have to learn to control ourselves and figure out how to fix this innate desire to have more, more, more.
Delete“Ultimately, to create a sustainable human civilization—one that can thrive for millennia without degrading the planet on which we all depend—consumer cultures will have to be re-engineered into cultures of sustainability” – Worldwatch page 113
ReplyDeleteThis quote is important because it brings up a very important point: the consumerist system that most of us are operating under is not in any way sustainable. The concepts and ideas pertaining to consumerism and capitalism, including rapid consumption of goods, planned obsolescence, overproduction of goods, and greed, all greatly work against the principles of sustainability. We must work towards buying and producing fewer goods, shopping locally, wasting less food and energy, and engaging in overall sustainable practices in general. The way in which we are living, at least in the United States, works for now but cannot be sustained in the long run without resounding negative ramifications in regards to the environment.
Hi Julia,
DeleteThe idea of creating a culture of sustainability is one the is crucial to the survival of our society. If we do not foster an environmental conscious soon, the fate of our planet will surely be sealed. The way in which we are focusing on consumer goods is not sustainable for our planet and puts a huge emphasis on using more and more resources, of which we are almost completely depleted already. Planned obsolescence is another concept that increases our drive towards consumerism. It proves frustrating but economically beneficial that companies plan for their products only to be useful for a limited amount of time. The key here is developing the culture of sustainability so that big business, consumers, and environmentalists share the same or similar goals and can work together to promote sustainable measures.
Unfortunately, today's consumer market isn't meant to be sustainable, but profitable. We, the consumers, buy the goods we need and the producers profit from it only to make more of it. Planned obsolescence is an intentional tactic that draws in the lots of money and over consumption all benefit many, except for what matters most, the planet. Money is the shade that block those in high positions from seeing their harmful impact. But, greed, however, could be the way for making consumerism greener. If the appropriate steps are taken, we could combine consumerism with sustainability, making it profitable to help the environment, essentially, turning firms' goals for making money into also making a difference.
DeleteI too took notice of this quote, our current consumer market implores that consuming more is a cheaper and better option but this is not meant to be sustainable but instead to boost profits. Our daily consumer is for the most part solely concerned with consumer non-durable goods which are highly unsustainable. In order to fix the trend of our consumer habits a possible solution could be to innovate the advertising and marketing for certain goods letting you know how they serve in a sustainable context. This is just way to spread more knowledge about sustainability as a whole and a great starting point to transition our consumer idealistic culture into a sustainable one.
DeleteI think this quote bring great importance to everybody as a society. It is time for change and the longer we wait to change the high usage of natural resources, the harder and quicker the punishment will be. I also think that another piece of this is education. We will not have a consumer culture based on sustainability and concern for the natural environment without properly educating the consumers on what effect they can have on the environment as well as the effects that a cleaner, more sustainable environment will have on the youth. The change must be done quickly while there are still natural resources to be preserved.
Delete"But given Earth’s weakening capacity to absorb greenhouse gases and other wastes generated in pursuit of the consumer dream, the end of the consumer culture will come—willingly or unwillingly, proactively chosen or not—and sooner than we would like to believe" (Worldwatch P. 124).
ReplyDeletePersonally, through this article, I was surprised to learn that consumerism is much more of an environmental problem than I had originally thought. I mean, of course I knew it was a huge issue, but it isn't necessarily the first thing I think of when talking about detriments to the environment and the biggest greenhouse gas problems. Our society today is so concerned with this consumerism and if anything this problem is only worsening. I think a solution that isn't implemented as much as it should be is creating products in the US using natural and recycled materials. I rarely ever see products that are either of these things. I think that if more products were introduced like this to the public, eventually they would become interested and try them out. Also, to get more people to get these products, I think it's vital that we educate the public about these issues and show them the true problems with this widespread epidemic of consumerism that we have. What do you think are viable options to help facilitate and decrease this consumerism that we face today?
As you said, I do not think that people are actively aware of the damage that our consumer culture does to the environment. The single use products and excess packaging are very detrimental as they will often end up in being dangerous to wildlife and polluting the ocean. I did not know how much of an issue it really was until taking an environmental science class, and not even all students will be exposed to this. I think that by educating younger generations about the issue that this is and about how they can fix it will help. Consumerism as we know it is a relatively recent development in man's history, so it is clear that we can live without some of these unnecessary products if we show people alternatives.
DeleteHali McKinley Lester:
DeleteI think consumerism is definitely a problem, especially in the developed world, but it’s a problem I believe we can fix proactively rather than being forced into it. Knowledge is power, so first we need to empower people with the knowledge how much our consumerism is hurting the environment. Then, getting companies to reduce packaging waste is an essential first step. Just as the people from the Office of Sustainability talked about, recycling is great and really important, but we need to do more to solve the sustainability crisis and that is going to come from reducing at an individual, institutional, and global level. I think one way to convince people to be less materialistic is for them to experience other cultures. As someone who loves to travel, I have seen the benefits of people who live more simply, and now I ask for experiences instead of things for presents. I believe we need to shift to a culture that values shared experiences, for those are the times that people will remember, rather than the things they got. We need to stop competing over who has the coolest “toys” and focus on what is really important: creating a culture that respects the environment and preserves it for future generations.
Consumerism has a ton of problems, most stemming from money being placed above humans and of course the environment. So anyone calling for anything but consumerism which is Capitalism is of course a Communist, well that's how Americans see it at least. That is the biggest part of the problem blind ignorance, if you don't want to be filthy rich and own a bunch of consumer stuff they people look at you like your crazy. So education is a great step but also more open conversation about "Hush Hush" topic, so politics and religion, not of one perceptive but of many. Lets educate America we are the world’s biggest problem after all.
Delete(Should be a reply)
Consumerism has a ton of problems, most stemming from money being placed above humans and of course the environment. So anyone calling for anything but consumerism which is Capitalism is of course a Communist, well that's how Americans see it at least. That is the biggest part of the problem blind ignorance, if you don't want to be filthy rich and own a bunch of consumer stuff they people look at you like your crazy. So education is a great step but also more open conversation about "Hush Hush" topic, so politics and religion, not of one perceptive but of many. Lets educate America we are the world’s biggest problem after all.
ReplyDelete“If the world was made for us, then it belongs to us and we can do what we damn well please with it.” “Yes, actually, that’s pretty amazing. I mean, you hear this fifty times a day. People talk about our environment, our seas, our solar system. I’ve even heard people talk about our wildlife.” (Daniel Quinn, Ishmael Pages 61-62).
ReplyDeleteAll too often, we neglect to take care of the world that sustains us and provides the resources that we desperately need yet abuse. As said in Ishmael, we think that the world was meant for us and that everything in and on it is ours for the taking. Even though we may be among the more intelligent species on Earth, we need not destroy it as the other species that have been around longer depend on it just as much as we do. Also, even without all other species in the picture, we need to be sustainable enough to leave resources for future generations. Ishmael points out that our culture is based on these unsustainable practices. Does anyone have any ideas on how this began or how we can steer ‘Mother Culture’ in a different direction?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI am always shocked at how much people neglect to even notice the environment around them. I notice that many people are truly uninformed about how bad the issues are regarding environmental abuse. They may think of the environment as unknown or dangerous territory, separate and distinct from their immediate life. Of course, we know that everything in our lives was provided by resources from the earth. I think it is important to make the environment relevant in a child's life from a young age so they can make these connections. By exposing a child to nature, they are more likely to understand that they are part of a much larger ecosystem and can learn to appreciate the complexity of the natural world. Adults can change with exposure to nature, too. By changing the mindset of our culture we can change the actions and behavior. I think the more we can get people to connect to nature and see all the benefits of living in harmony with nature rather than fighting it, the more people will actually want to make changes that will help the earth without feeling forced or unhappy.
DeleteI totally appreciate you emphasizing this quote! One of the most important themes in Ishmael is the understanding that humans are only one part of a much larger eco system. So often we view ourselves as the most important beings on earth yet fail to recognize that our existence is contingent on a thriving ecosystem for all beings. It is also important to note that we rely on nature/ecosystems/other animals more than they rely on us. In the short term we have the upper hand, but in the long term nature will always be more powerful.
DeleteI think the lack of human environmental awareness began when population started to grow exponentially, urbanization increased and industrialization spread. All of these factors took humans away from the direct contact with nature which was previously an integral part of human life. Now people are raised without ever gaining appreciation for where their food and livelihood come from and this leads to poor environmental ethic. An effective solution would be changing our education system to incorporate a more hands on learning experience with nature.
.."See how great we have become! Wielding the knowledge of good and evil, we have made ourselves the masters of the world, and the gods have no power over us. Though your groans fill the air, isn’t it sweeter to live in our own hands than in the hands of the gods?”
ReplyDeleteIshmael, 97.
This reminds me of what someone brought up in class today which was basically, with the technology that we have, couldn't we sacrifice the planet for the sake of human life? This stood out because it shows how man perceives himself to be all powerful, and also that his way of doing things is the right way despite other perspectives. It is almost as if we would rather continue to destroy the planet as long as we are doing it through our own invention and "live in our own hands" rather than accept our shortcomings.
Your point that we would rather destroy the planet using our capabilities than accept our shortcomings is startlingly deep and disturbing at the same time. I believe proof of this destructive mentality can be seen in a lot of the media we see today. Everyone knows about them: those post-apocalyptic films that take place in the far (or not that far if we don’t quickly change) future where the Earth has largely been destroyed by nuclear war, pollution, etc…. But the movies rarely broach the subject seriously such as why we did it or how to stop it. In fact, some movies even depicted the solution to be to abandon Earth completely in favor of living in another planet or in space. I know this sounds far-fetched but my point is how media has popularized the idea of us destroying the planet in such a way to create the misconception that it is cool, or that there will always be another solution. Ultimately, media does not portray the urgency of the problem as irrevocable, once we’ve destroyed the planet there are no more moves we can pull out to fix it.
DeleteWhile many people see the damage that humans have done to the Earth as irreversible, I still believe that we have a responsibility to prolong the lifespan of Earth for our future generations. Although we might have technology that will allow the human race to exist on other planets, we still need to take care of this one. If you were going to stay in a hotel, should you wreck your home before you leave? I think people need to consider how crucial the Earth was to the development of the human race and care more about its well-being. And although we are not the ones who have put this planets security in jeopardy, I believe, as children of the information age, it is our duty to do more for the environment than the generations before us.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBeyond the personal impact, this obesity epidemic—which has spread around the world, with 1.9 billion people now overweight or obese glob-ally and suffering similar health impacts—adds significantly to the demands humanity puts on Earth. Obesity has added an extra 5.4 percent of human biomass to the planet—15.5 million tons of human flesh—which means that people are eating enough extra food each year to feed an additional 242 million people of healthy weight. (Worldwatch - 114). This quote exemplifies the overconsumption of this current generation of people. Obesity, which might as well be the medical term for consuming too much...is a prime example of people's ignorance to their amount of consumption to the point that we are over feeding ourselves, thus depleting the planet of natural resources to more of a degree than bodily necessary. The US holds the largest share of obese citizens and to no surprise as we are also top in intake per person and municipal waste per person. Obesity is not only a health issue but an issue of sustainability in the context that we are being wasteful by not consuming only what is necessary.
ReplyDeletei agree with you on the obesity epidemic but I don't see it as wasteful but instead very greedy and hungry for survival. Many people can only afford so much and our consumer economy does allow for some things to eventually be mass produced so much that they are cheap. The problem we ran into is this cheap option is neither healthy or sustainable. The thoughts and ideas that they built off of were not critically thought about to be sustainable. They simply wanted to make money. i think the biger picture here is that consumerism is started off on the wrong foot, our human culture was not planning for the catastrophe we created. We are learning from our mistakes and correcting them. We no longer live in a world where we need to eat the food in front of us to survive, we need to survive by produce the food in front of us.
Delete“At the heart of how humans live their lives are the cultures they are part of. These cultures—and the norms, stories, rituals, values, symbols, and traditions that they incorporate—guide nearly all of our choices, from what we eat and how we raise our children to how we work, move, play, and celebrate.” (Worldwatch, p.113)
ReplyDeleteThis quote perfectly depicts the idea that we are our environment. Whether we recognize it or not, our lives are molded around the society we live in. Mindsets and actions are limited to the scope of normality of that specific culture, which means a person can only advance as far as their culture will allow. We discussed in class today how in generating an individual’s environmental impact, the main contributing factor lied in the geological location of that individual. No matter how much a single person tries to lead a sustainable life, it will not matter if that individual is apart of an environmentally degrading culture. Living in the United States alone guarantees that an individual’s ecological footprint accounts for three Earths. That says wonders about what we accept as a cultural norm here in the US, but how do we change culture?
Your culture is to you what you want it to be. Hopefully many people will realize this. Culture is not history, although history plays into what our culture becomes history does not change. Culture on the other hand does, our single human culture has had many different types, from the colonial British cultures, to native american culture roaming the plains! Culture is diversified and will hopefully adapt to our new human future and the life we will soon live.
DeleteThis quote truly emphasizes how engrained our consumerism is in our culture and how difficult it will be to change that culture to become one of sustainability. Changing a culture, is certainly not going to be an easy feat. Perhaps the best ways to go about changing people's ideas and attitudes is by educating them of the effects of overconsumption. However, this also brings to question the effects of educating people. Can it really change their attitudes? For instance, smokers know that tobacco can kill them, yet they do it. Likewise, those who are obese know that in order to be healthy, they need to make healthy changes, yet some don't. Therefore, will it take more than education? Perhaps government intervention is what we need in order to change our culture, but even then, our government focuses so much on the economy, which has so much to do with consumerism.
DeleteWhen it comes to changing culture, it really depends on how much the consumer is willing to change their ways to conform to the lives of other. For example, the various forms of social media has been a popular way for people to be connected to one another. The daily use of social media on smartphones and on laptop computers can now be considered a cultural aspect of our society. With this example in mind, I could say that we need to present an idea that many people would want to advocate (especially celebrities). This is not the most humanitarian or ideal idea, but just by the way our society has changed, this may be the only useful method into capturing a large population's attention.
Delete"Many businesses are now incorporating or getting certified as “B” or “benefit”
ReplyDeletecorporations….And the company must take into account the impact of its
decisions on not just shareholders but all stakeholders, including workers,
local communities, and the planet. Where laws do not allow incorporation
as a benefit corporation, many businesses have worked with B Lab, a nonprofit
organization, to be certified as B corporations." (WorldWatch, pg. 120)
I believe that this recent development in how businesses are starting to function and view other factors is very important and should be pursued further. The influence businesses have are monumental, not only because they are the ones largely encouraging and bolstering the consumerist attitude pervading most developed countries but also because they themselves are also huge consumers since they need resources to manufacture the products we buy. Thus, by encouraging sustainability in businesses we would hitting the problem at the crux and by approaching the problem there create a larger ripple effect in society than if we focused on buyers instead, who are at the bottom of the consumer chain. How else do you think we should reach out to businesses?
I believe that in order to incorporate sustainability into a capitalist economy, we must incentivize businesses and change the community ethic surrounding corporate citizenship. B corporations are an excellent example of how companies with a commitment to eco-minded practices thrive due to consumers’ positive perceptions of them. Environmental and social responsibility are starting to become “cool” in mainstream society. Purchasing products manufactured in sweatshops now carries the same social stigma as littering. On the other hand, TOMS shoes has been a radically successful example of a social venture that does good while providing a product that customers want. I think that the most effective way to encourage sustainability is to make it a societal norm, which our generation has the power to do.
Delete"[incorporating] Earth’s rights
ReplyDeleteinto their constitutions, in turn empowering people to legally defend Earth’s
interest even when no humans are directly harmed"
How will we as a global population decide on what the earths rights are? WIll a constitution make the change we need to see in how people treat the earth or are we at a point of no return. I feel like we should have taken these steps years ago. Now we are actually experiencing the climate change and people want to take action. Will this constitution change the our global sustainability norms or is there something else we need to do?
Zoe,
DeleteI think you make a great point in saying that we should’ve taken these steps years ago. It is evident that the climate is continuing to change in a manner that we can’t seem to stop. I think that by enacting earths rights into the constitution will help in the sense that more people might view this as an actual problem if it is written in the constitution. However, I still think that we need to work together in order to overcome the problem of climate change. By coming together as a community we can accomplish a lot more in regards to protecting our earth. We need to first attract the media’s attention so that the world will know how important saving our earth is. Once the world is educated on this issue we can begin forming programs to save our world.
Zoe,
DeleteI also agree that measures to create and protect Earth’s rights should have been taken years ago. However, I believe that the reason they were not implemented was because most people were unaware of the environmental issues until they became so large that the issues appeared to be unsolvable. Environmental problems are usually not attempted to be solved, because they are seen as difficult or inconvenient, and we also still have people who deny the existence of such issues. Adding Earth’s rights to the constitution would definitely increase the knowledge of such problems, but I don’t think it would immediately change the participation towards sustainable practices unless it is strictly enforced.
Dear Zoe,
DeleteI think that this constitution will have a bigger impact in our views and actions because as humans we seem to respond better when there are laws and rules that prohibit or enable us to act in a certain way. But besides this constitution, we need people to really sit down and expand on these issues. As humans we also break laws, so not everyone is going to follow thru with this constitution, for which we must enforce our ideas and make sure everyone is aware of the changes that are going on around us. I think that this is an awesome idea, and definitely a great step in solving or decreasing our issues and impact on this planet.
"Moving away from consumerism...will undoubtedly be the most difficult part of the transition to a sustainable society." (WorldWatch 115)
ReplyDeleteThis argument could not be more accurate. Much of our activities and behaviors is centered around consumerism. For instance, the packaging that we throw away, the food we consume, and the AC we use are all products of consumerism, which is controlled by major corporations, advertising firms, and the government. In other words, as a developed nation, consumerism is so engrained in our society today that will make it incredibly difficult to change the ideas about consumerism and thus purchasing behavior. On the global scale, consumerism will be even harder to stop as many countries develop further and their citizens gain greater purchasing power, something that they've not yet experienced. In all, I believe the book is absolutely correct in stating that consumerism stems from purchasing power, but leads to environment degradation, and is so engrained in developed societies, that it is now a matter of changing ideas and behaviors.
I agree; however, people are not going to just give up their things. In fact, it may be impossible for families, especially in developed countries, that have been living in this materialistic culture for generations. We must find other ways in which we can reduce the impact of consumer culture and materialistic culture without simply telling people to stop buying things or taking away their purchasing power. We need to hold big corporation accountable for their products by creating cradle-to-grave responsibilities for these companies and not put the blame all on the consumer. Also, we cannot stop the industrialization of less developed/developing countries since a big issue of sustainability is that most of the world cannot participate in sustainable practices since they can barely survive themselves therefore forcing sustainable practices to take a backseat.
DeleteI also agree that consumerism is what keeps us from being sustainable and that it will be very hard to break. That is what the quote above explains as difficult but necessary. It is so difficult because the capitalist companies have made it that way. We can't easily go against society, but instead have to follow the path set up for us. That is why we should focus on changing society to make sustainable values easier to achieve. However, I think that the less developed countries could have an easier time to adopt sustainable practices because they are sharing our earth and don't have the structure holding them back from protecting it. I come from a very consumerist city and was very stressed living there because there always seemed to be something I had to buy. In return I had to work all the time and I felt trapped. Now in Gainesville my life is a little simpler because everything is a lot closer and relatively cheaper so I can ride my bike from place to place and feel good about what I spend my money on because we have more sustainable options. Thinking back on living in a very consumerist city I thought about how the excess of things to buy made sustainability difficult. Being sustainable isn't usually easy but it is much more difficult if you have an option of convenience. Having only the option to do something sustainable makes it a lot easier in the long run, just like it may cost more at first to change but will eventually end up costing less for the planet.
Delete"And the company must take into account the impact of its decisions on not just shareholders but all stakeholders, including workers, local communities, and the planet." (WorldWatch 120)
ReplyDeleteWhat are some programs or ways that companies can be held accountable for the impacts their products produce on the environment via consumerism?
I really like this question because I think it's very important for society to hold big businesses accountable for the detrimental effects their products inflict on the environment. For one, we need to continue funding the Environmental Protection Agency so that it can properly enforce environmental regulations set forth by Congress. In my opinion, we should be increasing the level of funding for the EPA, not cutting it down. Furthermore, the government should give small businesses better incentives, perhaps through taxes, so that they can start their own sustainable programs; small businesses can more easily track their environmental impacts than big businesses with hundreds or thousands of employees and committees to oversee. Most importantly, individual employees should ensure that their jobs and tasks align with sustainable environmental ideals - if a company is knowingly selling products to consumers that have negative effects on the environment, an employee should step up and blow the whistle.
DeleteA carbon tax is a good place to start. It's been an idea for decades and has even been voted on a few times in congress. Unfortunately, one has never been passed into law. The good thing about a carbon tax is it allows businesses to operate more sustainably without having to overhaul their entire infrastructure. It's also highly beneficial because it makes renewable energy more affordable, because of the increasing causes of fossil fuels. Demand of alternative energy will also trigger a supply increase, which will drive the prices down further. A carbon tax is not an ideal solution are because of the same reasons it is a good solution. Not forcing businesses to change in the short term is cost effective and appealing, but in order to meet sustainability goals it just probably isn't enough of a shift. However, a carbon tax would provide us with a rather perfect transition to an ultimately sustainable economy.
Delete"Because these resources are nonrenewable, a growing chorus of
ReplyDeleteanalysts worries that whereas minerals and metals in the twentieth century
were easy to reach and cheap to extract, nonrenewables this century may be
increasingly scarce and costly to bring to market." (Worldwatch Pg. 121)
The people who extracted the nonrenewable resources in the twentieth century did not realize how this would of impacted the future generation's need to extract those fossil fuels. Although there was no research about the scarce resources during that time, there still could of been consideration for the next generation's needs to extract fossil fuels. Yes, extracting fossil fuels in this moment of time is not recommended since it does contribute to climate change and how it is essentially nonrenewable. However, we still need those resources until we can find a valuable, clean, and reliable source to fuel our machinery. This concept directly applies to human dignity; it is important to be fair to others, regardless of that person's point in time, when it comes to dividing up the resources humans need for survival and for everyday necessities.
"“But given Earth’s weakening capacity to absorb greenhouse gases and other wastes generated in pursuit of the consumer dream, the end of the consumer culture will come- willingly or unwillingly, proactively chosen or not- and sooner than we would like to believe.” (Worldwatch, 124)
ReplyDeletePeople often act as though environmental activism and sustainable practices are a choice to be made. As explained by this quote, our current systems and practices are going to come to an end whether we like it or not. If we act sustainably now, it could be a really positive change and we could change the world. If it becomes too late, we will all suffer the consequences of being unprepared to run out of resources. It is difficult to see how uniformed many people are because they have not been able to make the connection that without the earth and the resources it provides, we would have no way to survive. What are some different ways we can help more people come to understand that environmental ethics is a top priority?
Hello Haley! This has been one of my main questions since the start of this class, how can we change peoples relationship to the environment? What is the easiest way to send a mass message to the whole world that we need to change our ways(less consumerism) before it is too late. Dr. Chandler has opened my eyes to the power of human connection and education. I feel, from what little I know and understand, we need to get out into the world to show people what needs to be done. Humans need proof and explanations as to how we can make a difference and why our world is slowly crumbling. There is a cry to help right now, and as sustainability advocates, we need to answer.
Delete"...creating a sustainable economy - one that delivers an equitable and environmentally benign production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services - may be the toughest and most important challenge mankind has ever faced." (Thiele, pg. 143)
ReplyDeleteThere are many factors that go into making a business sustainable, but the bottom line is being able to make a sustainable business profitable. In your opinion, or maybe with some help from Thiele in this chapter, why do you think creating a sustainable economy is such a difficult task? At the same time, why is it so important?
Interestingly, this idea relates a bit to what Matthew Williams spoke about in class on Tuesday. He mentioned how the economy, and the idea of payments specifically, is a concept created completely by mankind. Unfortunately, humans have become fully concerned with economics, business and most importantly, profit. Matthew Williams explained that profitable business tends to be the main focus for people because it is tangible, immediately gratifying and so on. The difference with sustainable business is unfortunately that running a sustainable business tends to result in the opposite. To run a business sustainably some personal gain must be given up to instead benefit the greater good. Unfortunately most business owners do not want to sacrifice their own success. Creating a sustainable economy is so difficult because it requires a lot of sacrifice on the economic level before there is a benefit. Additionally, this benefit is for the greater good and unfortunately some people are only interested in personal benefits.
Delete“the first generation of factory workers typically chose to work fewer hours when receiving raises, not buy more stuff. The purpose of life, after all, was not to spend most of a person’s waking hours in hot, dangerous conditions, away from family and community.” (Worldwatch Institute, 117)
ReplyDeleteThis quote really highlights how much the perception of money has changed throughout history. Since the industrial revolution there has been a shift in culture regarding what people think happiness entails. Nowadays, a lot of people think money and fame equate to happiness. This mentality leads to lack of moral fulfillment and career dissatisfaction. It is so frequent to see or hear of “workaholics” who slave away in cubicles wasting valuable time in the pursuit of money and material goods. This profit driven, money hungry mentality does not lead to any meaningful personal or societal progress. Whether we like it or not, money is an integral part of our society and a huge factor in determining how people act and what decisions they make. Therefore, it is crucial, to find ways to make environmental sustainability economically sustainable as well.
What are some successful business models you have heard of that promote good in the community and environment and also make money?
"The philosophy of free markets and small government has long demonized taxation as a job-killing, “socialist” redistribution tool that robs the rich in order to feed the inefficiencies of “big government.” (WorldWatch pg 146)
ReplyDeleteBefore this, the article talked about how taxation of fossil fuels can be used to discourage people from relying on it so much. Instead, taxation of these fossil fuels will drive consumers towards clean energy where there is little to no tax. The problem presented in the quote, however, is that there are large corporations that do evade billions of dollars in tax that should go towards the government so that they are able to spend that money towards developing systems of clean energy. Taxing the rich isn't a socialist ideal at all, but rather what should be done. Further taxing the lower class rather than the rich is unsustainable itself, as the government would be driven deeper into debt and funding for positive programs will run out. In order to become sustainable environmentally, people need to realize that we have to become sustainable fiscally/economically as well.
"Finally, given that media—and the marketing now embedded at its every
ReplyDeletelevel—play such a powerful role in shaping modern cultures, social marketing
and “ad jamming” will be a powerful means to harness marketing energy
for positive ends. Examples include social marketing efforts like The Story
of Stuff project, which uses short, catchy videos to build political support
for reduced consumption (see Chapter 23), and ad jamming efforts by Adbusters,
the Billboard Liberation Front, and The Yes Men" (WorldWarch, 122).
Greetings everyone! Media is incredibly important in the world of sustainability. It can educate people about many different topics pertaining to our world such as global warming and recycling. The media is such a value source for sustainability advocates because it is an easy, accessible source for almost all audiences. Everything we look at is basically influenced by the media in one way or another. Many times in ads and other forms of media we are "encouraged to consume and consume with no thought of where it all comes from or where it all goes"(Ben Lee song lyric). In many ways I feel that if the media can encourage us to be consumeristic, it can also lead us to want to be sustainable. Imagine if if a mass media company released an ad on TV about global warming. Many people would see the message and become more aware of their surroundings. The media could bring our world into an age of more eco-minded people. Do you think it is possible to start an environmental revolution with the help of the media?
The media plays such a huge role in our lives today and it is possibly one of the best ways to spread the word of sustainability. Everywhere we look people are on their phones checking facebook, instagram and the like. This media can be used positively and negatively, but regardless it is going to get out there. If people who maintain sustainable practices find a way to communicate their goals in an open and effective manner then the interest will greatly increase. We must the conscious not to come off as too intense, however, and we don’t want to look like we are pointing fingers at people; we want being informative and willing to help to be the top priority. As much bad talk as social media tends to get, it can really change the world for the better if we let it.
Delete"'Nobody eats but us. All this food belongs to us and no one else can have any without out permission.' They're saying, 'What we want to live lives and what we want to die dies.'" Ishmael p106
ReplyDeleteThis quote is interesting because it really represents a common thought process among people today. We are so absorbed in our own lives and our selfish tendencies that we reach a point in which nothing else matters. Do you agree that this is a common theme in our societies mindset? Do you think there is a way to fix this?
I also found this quote to be quite fascinating and thought-provoking. It made me reflect on society in a different way than I would traditionally think of it. As humans, I agree that we tend to view ourselves as being superior and often think that nothing else matters besides whatever it is that we want. That being said, I definitely believe that this is a common theme within the mindset of society today. At this point in time, I do not believe that we would be able to fix this because we are so set in our ways and do not want to budge. Since this has been the traditional way of thinking for so long, I do not see it changing.
DeleteYour quote also struck me on the social and political aspects of our world we have today. We still decide who eats. The World Food Programme estimates that “some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth.” Our issue is worse than just thinking humans are superior than other species, currently our society values some groups of people over others to the point where basic necessities such as food are not evenly distributed to all. Because of this there is an excess of food in some areas whereas in others they are faced with food scarcity. I believe in order to solve this we must foster a relationship among all members of the human race to support our growth and ensure the continuation of our species.
Delete"Nature-deficit disorder describes the human costs of alienation from nature, among them: diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties, and higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses." (Louv, Last Child in the Woods. Pg36.) At its core, nature-deficit disorder corrodes away one’s human dignity. Sufferers lack self-worth and do not feel physically or psychologically empowered in the world they live in. Unfortunately, many people remain unaware of the aspect of life that they are missing out on, like feeling empty but not quite sure why. Intense feelings of detachment consume the individual, often oblivious to potential enlightenments in the world around them. Their tempers tighten; they lose hope, and oftentimes become mentally ill. But with the right opportunity, they can incorporate a primitive mindset in order to absorb the wonders of nature. Finally, sufferers realize that what their lives lacked stood right in front of them. And at this moment, people become conscious of their place and purpose in life.
ReplyDeleteHey Jackson, I also read Last Child in the Woods and made the same observations about nature-deficit disorder. It is unfortunate how so many people fall under the pressures brought on by NDD, given that nature is so readily available in many different facets. From walking through a park to hiking up a mountain, nature can be founds practically anywhere. If I remember correctly, nature's biggest opponent is development. Whether it be urban development or technological development, the idea of having something better has drawn more people away from nature. I feel like consumerism can also be included in this list. When hot Christmas gifts are iPhones, fancy toys, and new game systems, it is hard to promote nature to a younger crowd; especially a crowd that belongs to higher socioeconomic families. Perhaps if the latest trends were cool hiking boots and high-tech, compass gadgets, more children would take an interest in nature.
Delete“Why are people consuming so much? The answer cannot be simply be- cause they can afford to. In short, it stems from decades of engineering of a set of cultural norms, values, traditions, symbols, and stories that make it feel natural to consume ever larger amounts—of food, of energy, of stuff. Policymakers changed laws, marketers and the media cultivated desire, busi- nesses created and aggressively pushed new products, and over time “con- sumers” deeply internalized this new way of living.” (WorldWatch, 115)
ReplyDeleteFrom this quote it is evident that people are consuming more not simply because they can, but because it is the “norm”. In our everyday lives we see manufactures constantly updating products, and creating newer, better versions of products that were perfectly usable six months ago. This strategy by manufactures to make consumers feel as if their product is outdated and forces consumers to buy the newest version of a product even if they don't need it. It seems natural to buy the newest iphone, upgrade your computer, or dump the perfectly usable TV you have for a newer one. This is how society has learned to live, due to clever branding by producers to make consumers feel as if they “have” to buy the newest product. My question to you is how can we stop the desire of consumers to constantly want the “newest”, “shiniest” product?
It's interesting because I think one of the easiest ways to change consumerism is to use consumerism, at least in the short term. Minimalist wardrobes, for example, have become a huge trend, especially on social media. People want convenience, and what is more convenient than having a reasonable sized wardrobe? Fashion is one of the most wasteful and opaque industries; blogs, social media personalities, and fashion gurus promoting thrift shopping and a one-rack closet can shift people's attitudes by working within the system already provided. In the short term, using consumerism to combat gluttony can work. In the U.S., however, we have tens of minutes more of commercials on television than the U.K. Obviously consumerism will sneak in unless a more radical approach is tried, but as this gorged culture was created gradually, so shall it be remedied.
Delete"We have to first remember that the goal of any economy should be to sustainably improve human well-being and quality of life and ... that too much of a focus on
ReplyDeletematerial consumption can actually reduce human well-being. We have to understand better what really does contribute to sustainable human wellbeing and recognize the substantial contributions of natural and social capital, which are now the limiting factors to improving well-being in many countries. We have to be able to distinguish between real poverty, in terms of low quality of life, and low monetary income." (Worldwatch, 126).
We have heard many times that money doesn't buy happiness. Additionally, through our sustainablility studies we've learned that booming economies and lots of money do not necessarily correlate to sustainability (nature's well-being if you will) or human well-being. Matthew Williams from the UF sustainability office further explained in his presentation on Tuesday how our economy and our culture of buying and selling are concepts created completely by humans. No other species employs these concepts.
Can you give an example of a situtation where low income does not exemplify real poverty as does low quality of life? Why do we think income and material possesions affect our well-being and happiness? Do you think there will be a time where we don't think this way?
Kiera, I think there are many examples of situations where people may have a low income without having a low quality of life. I have seen many videos where people live on very little money, but when they have all of the things that they need, they are happy. For example, a family in a small fishing village in Madagascar has almost no money but they have a strong village community and a strong occupation for the day to catch fish for dinner which leaves them happy. Most of the situations I have seen correlate to rural areas where people can rely on their neighbors and they have responsibilities that keep them occupied in their lives. I believe that we think material possessions equate to happiness because this is what we have been told through advertising, but also because we need things to occupy our lives. Yes we have jobs in the day, but these are not satisfying and we are not responsible for them, like living in a village or running a farm. I honestly think that we can achieve more contentment by living simpler lives with fewer possessions where we know we belong in our communities. This situation is possible, but it will require some major changes to our current society.
DeleteAgreed with Adam. I personally think it all boils down to the culture and manner through which people were raised. Some are brought up getting everything they want and never being satisfied, and some don't have much but are completely satisfied, and this carries through adulthood and generations after. I think material possessions provide us with something that will make us happy, but people take it too far and think and RELY on it to make them happy. Honestly, I would like to think that there would be a day when so much importance isn't placed on material goods, but I cannot foresee that happening any time soon. Our culture is just way too consumed in consumerism and it would take a whole lot to get us out.
Delete"The United States, for example, now suffers from an obesity epidemic in which two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. This leads to significant increases in mortality and morbidity from a variety of chronic, diet-related diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and several forms of cancer" (Worldwatch 114)
ReplyDeleteThis quote is something that is really important in my opinion because it illustrates the tremendous impacts that obesity is having on the population of the United States. Also, this quote relates to how our culture of consumerism has extended beyond material possessions and is having consequences within our daily lives. This not only has an impact on the health of individuals but also on our planet because according to the text "Obesity has added an extra 5.4 percent of human biomass to the planet" (worldwatch 114). What are some ways that this can be combated?
The obesity epidemic we are facing is not only impacting our health but is also leading us down a path far from sustainability. As we become more and more dependent on packaged foods, we are not only depleting our health but we are producing more waste and increasing the shipping time of our food. Because obesity causes an increase in chronic disease at a young age, we face implications in our workforce and our healthcare system. In terms of combating this epidemic, there are many ways to fight obesity and move toward sustainability at the same time. For example, increasing the consumption of local produce is not only healthy, but also sustainable. Riding a bike instead of using a car reduces emissions and provides a good form of exercise. It is not by coincidence that the things damaging our environment are also jeopardizing our health.
Delete"Taxing the resource base of our predominantly “brown” economy—
ReplyDeletecoal, petroleum, and many other minerals—can steer the market away
from resource-intensive growth and toward smart-technology industries
in renewable energy, clean water, new and better materials, and waste management." (Worldwatch 145) I love this idea of using monetary rewards to incentivize sustainable efforts. Thiele believes that this will make an impact with corporations; do you believe it will make a difference on the consumer level to financially reward recycling and composting?
As of right now, people don't really have the incentive to recycle and such. The municipal government provides recycling bins where people can throw their paper, plastic, and aluminum wastes. In my household, my family recycles because that's how we have always taken care of our trash. However there are many families and households that do not do the same simply because they don't have a reason to. If the government could use monetary rewards to encourage responsible waste management, of course people will start being better recyclers because they have a better reason for it instead of just saying "I care about the environment."
Delete“… Any species that exempts itself from the rules of competition ends up destroying the community in order to support its own expansion.” (p. 135)
ReplyDeleteThe central theme in Ishmael is that our modern society of “Takers” has come to exist without the natural limits of competition, and this has led to many problems. The text says, “The story the Takers have been enacting here for the past ten thousand years is not only disastrous for mankind and for the world, its fundamentally unhealthy and unsatisfying” (p. 147). Our problems stem from our technology and agriculture which have propelled us into the modern age, where we are destroying the planet and leading unfulfilling lives. I want to ask the class, do you agree with this message? Can we continue to live without the rules of competition in nature, as we do now?
I completely agree with the message that Ishmael presents. We as a society continue to take and take excessively, while depleting Earths natural resources. Individuals have moved away from self-sustaining to overusing and pursuing greedy lives. This type of lifestyle eventually takes a toll on humanity and not a good one. I also agree with Ishmael that a society that puts items and wants in front of the health of the environment will have unfulfilled life. If we continue to live the way we are now, we will never be able to sustain ourselves for future generations. There has to be a limit of what we do and if we don’t realize this soon and start implementing laws and new actions to take, we will have a very uncertain future. Developed countries are the main source of this horrible overuse of resources that will eventually cause irreversible damage to the Earth. Developed countries need to be the ones to lead and start a revolution for sustainability to reverse the damage they have done already.
DeleteHi Adam,
DeleteAs for your question, I do agree with this message. And when I was reading this quote, human beings immediately popped into my head as we may be the most prominent species that covet this expansion. We tend to isolate ourselves, thinking ourselves superior to any other species residing on this world, and most certainly, this type of mindset cannot lead to a sustainable environment. One aspect of sustainability is that we are all connected and dependent on each other, whether it may be to other human beings, animals, or nature. And as the message states, isolating ourselves from this natural competition will only destroy the community as a whole. The sort of mindset that we have, thinking that we are truly exceptional and superior than any living thing on earth, will negatively impact the society as the result may lead out to eliminating other species on earth, and in the long term, the future generation.
WorldWatch (page. 120) “A number of schools and universities are also working to embed sustainability
ReplyDeletedirectly into their school cultures, including integrating environmental science, media literacy, and critical thinking into their curricula. In Europe, 39,500 schools have now been awarded a “Green Flag” for greening their curricula, empowering students to make their schools more sustainable, and articulating the schools’ ecological values alongside their educational values.”
Schools are obviously a huge influence for learning and knowledge. Do you think schools in America are doing enough to get children to start thinking about sustainability? Also, do you think UF is doing a good job of encouraging and spreading information on sustainability?
I definitely agree that schools have an immense impact on society and the cultural norms that we choose to instill within our youth. I think that, through sustainability education, our world could see a huge change in the values that drive every single one of our daily choices and decisions. I think that America does need to do a better job at getting children to think about sustainability. I think that they should make it fun to learn about how to protect the earth and engage in activities that they can do on their own to shape the way they live their lives and to also have an impact on their parents as well. Judging by our last presentation, it is clear that UF is doing a great job at finding ways to make it more sustainable, however, I do believe that they must take the next step by targeting students on a more personal level. I think that sometimes convenience (like using disposable products, for example) can be an issue that can take over a college students values, especially on a university campus, so I think that it is important that we try to show students that being sustainable can be extremely beneficial to them and can make the small sacrifices of convenience so worth it.
Delete“Ultimately, to create a sustainable human civilization—one that can thrive for millennia without degrading the planet on which we all depend—consumer cultures will have to be re-engineered into cultures of sustainability, so that living sustainably feels as natural as living as a consumer does today” (World Watch 113)
ReplyDeleteI found this quote especially interesting, because it really got me thinking about our society and how we depend on materials goods to determine our happiness. For years we have all lived in a constant pattern of purchasing and become accustomed to consumer culture. With this being said, do you believe people would even consider a more sustainable lifestyle and abandon the culture we have used for centuries? What do you think would be a good start to changing the consuming habits we all have today and becoming a more sustainable with our purchasing?
“In short, it stems from decades of engineering of a set of cultural norms, values, traditions, symbols, and stories that make it feel natural to consume ever larger amounts—of food, of energy, of stuff. Policymakers changed laws, marketers and the media cultivated desire, businesses created and aggressively pushed new products, and over time “consumers” deeply internalized this new way of living.” (World Watch 15).
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting to think about culture as a means through which we as a society make our decisions and live our daily lives. It is with these cultural norms that we establish our values and the morals which we all choose to live by each and every day. However, once cultural norms are put in place, it is very difficult to get rid of them. Consumerism has become a value that has taken over cultural norms and has allowed our world to constantly desire more and to live in constant search of convenience. Therefore, in order to promote sustainability as something worth fighting for, we as a society must change these views as a whole. It takes the determination of an individual, and then many, and finally hundreds to change the world for the better.
Hi Laura, I very much agree with the statements you made. Holistically sustainable practices can only be in place with the support of the entire group, and not just the individual. Culture plays a critical role in this idea. Cultural norms and practices bring a group together and provide an identity. Through this sense of unification, people will have the ability to pull together and fight for the better use of resources and ultimately, the saving of the planet. It is crucial, however, that this occurs as a group, because it is simply not possible to be achieved by an individual.
Delete"Either we find ways to wrestle our cultural patterns out of the grip of those with a vested interest in maintaining consumerism or Earth’s ecosystems decline and bring down the consumer culture for the vast majority of humanity in a much crueler way," (Worldwatch 113).
ReplyDeleteThis quote really summed up something often uncomfortable to discuss. Culture has always been viewed as the pinnacle of humanity, a part of a people's souls, something that is sacred and basically has its own rights. There's this taboo in speaking out against a culture. In the United States, criticizing capitalism, military practices, the police, and the constitution can be seen as Un-American at best and dangerous at worst. Just like in people, not all aspects of culture are good. Consumer culture perpetuates unsustainable practices, yet politicians cannot dare to say anything against it. Do you think it's okay to criticize a culture, even if it's not your own?
Hello Rebecca,
DeleteI completely agree with your statements and I also find this quote very interesting and definitive. I think that this statement also greatly relates to some of the themes our recent guest lecturers were explaining when talking about carbon footprints. On the website that calculates carbon footprints, just by clicking America as the place you live, you automatically cannot consume less than two planets. The consumer culture is unsustainable and I think that it is important to notice the benefits and disadvantages of other cultures to try and adapt them (as best as we can) to our own. I do think that it is okay to criticize other cultures. Often a clear perspective will not be valued unless it comes from an outsider or someone who is not currently experiencing the dimensions of the culture. I also believe that each culture allows different angles and viewpoints on major topics, including sustainability. By understanding different cultures' ideas and opinions, one group of people can work toward molding their own.
You bring up an interesting point. There is a delicate balance in criticizing other cultures, particularly if they are being criticized for their "other" properties. However, I believe unbiased critique of cultural practices is necessary in order to make changes and improve, as well as reflect upon basic cultural values. While some practices may be centuries old, this does not mean they are necessarily sustainable or good. The importance of different aspects of a culture is very subjective, but if we cannot look to see what is at the root of a practice, and whether or not it deserves to be continued, we risk turning a blind eye on manipulations and negative behavior. In our effort to be patriotic, we have made this mean beyond reproach, which is dangerous. In denying any criticism, this leads to a slippery slope of repeating mistakes and promulgating unsustainable consumerism.
Delete"Creating such a movement, says Annie Leonard,
ReplyDeleterequires the realization that individual actions are 'a fine place to start' but
'a terrible place to stop.'"(Worldwatch, 133).
This quote stood out to me in particular because of the truth that is underlying the statement. The value of an individual action is constantly degraded within society. People feel the need to argue someone's intentions to become vegetarian, for example, with the statement, "you're just one person, they're going to keep killing the animals anyway"; however, this undermines the value of an individual. And at the end of the day, everyone believes that they have the power to do something more and make a change on the earth, which is a definite possibility; it often starts with the individual. However, that is where it should start not end, as the quote says. Sustainability is only accomplishable in the long-run and with combined effort of the majority of the population. This kind of patience and team work would be challenging but not impossible and it starts with the individual.
Very nice response, Amanda! I agree with your thought process on the quote above. I believe there is a certain myth that exists where people believe their one action will not affect the world in any sense. An example of this is voting. Most people choose not to vote because they believe their one vote will not illicit change. However, most people don’t realize that it only takes one vote to win. It only takes one idea to spark change for future generations to come. I believe that Sustainability in 2015 and the present will require a person to take a stand against the woes of our ways. One person can inspire many people to change their ways!
Delete“A number of schools and universities are also working to embed sustainability directly into their school cultures, including integrating environmental science, media literacy, and critical thinking into their curricula. In Europe, 39,500 schools have now been awarded a “Green Flag” for greening their curricula, empowering students to make their schools more sustainable, and articulating the schools’ ecological values alongside their educational values.” (WorldWatch, Page 120)
ReplyDeleteThis quote is real accurate, especially to society’s perspective and morals. Schools ae a place where knowledge is passed down to other generations, therefore integrating sustainable educational measures is not complicated and at the same time is beneficial to both the institution and the student. From recycling, composting and saving energy to including sustainability studies in every area of study, institutions have tremendous power to have a positive influence on its students. What do you think is the most effective way to carry out sustainable teachings so that they have a bigger impact on student’s lives and their practices? Do you agree with schools and Universities integrating sustainability to their curricula?
I'll speak for the Environmental Engineering Science department on campus. The university is definitely "working to embed sustainability directly into the school culture." Attendance at one of the Grand Challenges in Engineering Seminars every Friday at 11:45 in the Particle Science Building Room 202 will show you this progress.
DeleteHowever, I would like to add that before sustainability can be effectively implemented into the environmental engineering department, the environmental engineering department needs to effectively implement the various areas of EES together: air, water, coastal, ecological. These areas have a few connections, but there has not been a comprehensive combination of all these topics.
Professors have wanted to write a sustainability resources paper, but it has not yet materialized. This is what I plan to do as research. Im writing the proposal!
Before sustainability can be effective, the various aspects of the environment need to combined. In that way, we will characterize the environment best. Characterization is the best precursor to policy implementation, which is where a vast majority of sustainability lies.
NOTE: Sustainability through the community is available anytime and will help the aforementioned endeavor.
I think sustainability needs to be embedded beginning from primary education. There needs to be an increase in experimental learning especially in the terms of sustainability, so children can learn and adapt to the ways to be sustainable. One cannot act sustainable if they do not learn how to and experiment with it. It will allow them to practice sustainable practices within school and then implement them into their lives at home. I agree with schools integrating sustainability into their curricula because sustainability is at first a social problem. Schools combat school issues head on and it plays into all aspects of our lives. In order for future generations to survive, they must learn how to be sustainable. In order to learn and implement sustainable lives, they must be educated, which is exactly what schools do. Sustainability is a growing issue in our lives. Schools must give children a leg up for the future and assist them in protecting their prospects for the future.
Delete"Technological innovation and sustainability can and should be complementary goals." (Thiele, 150)
ReplyDeleteI appreciated this quote because of its relevance to our lives. Many times people perceive technological advancement to be the opposing side to sustainability, and ignore the fact that they can and should both be a common goal. Unsustainable growth is just that, unsustainable, and in order for us to continue to prosper we need to develop the steady-state economy Thiele discusses, and combine our innovative power with the drive for sustainability. What are some of the ways in which innovation and sustainability go hand in hand? Do you agree that this pair of concepts meshes well when applied correctly?
I definitely agree in your reaction and response to this quote. To answer your first question, some real-world examples of this quote in action include the reduce of demand for paper since the digitalization of many documents, finding more sustainable alternatives for non-biodegradable materials, and more sustainable and efficient public transportation like biofuel buses or the bullet trains in Japan. As for your second question, I definitely feel that these two should come hand in hand. Too much in the past 200 years has technological innovation preceded the importance of sustainability, and now the Earth is paying the price. In order to build a more sustainable, but still progressive future, we must find ways to keep both in mind when furthering our society.
DeleteI think you are right to point out the compatibility of sustainability and technological innovation. We’re going to need the latter if the goals of the former are to be reached. For instance, renewable energies like wind and solar are necessary for us to move beyond 19th century fossil fuels. Though they go hand in hand, we have to remember to slow down and think about what sort of effects technologies will have in the long run. Photovoltaic panels require lots of rare minerals that are often mined in unsustainable ways that severely damage the land. Though they provide a shift away from coal, solar panels aren’t perfect. Electric cars are an improvement on gas-guzzling machines, but when the electricity that powers them comes from mountaintop removal coal, the emissions still exist. The consumer is just one more step removed. What I’m getting at here is that while technology is incredibly useful, we shouldn’t think of it as our savior. Assuming humans will create some technology that will pull us from our predicament is a product of the kind of thinking that got us here in the first place. Using technology will be necessary, we just need to be sure to use it well.
DeleteHow will resource taxation affect the reliability of services such as electricity? Note: Under the environmental cost clause, utilities can pass the cost incurred from environmental policies onto consumers. This will raise the energy bill undoubtedly.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Between 1972 and 2009 world energy consumption nearly doubled from the equivalent of 4.6 billion to 8.4 billion tons of oil." (World Watch, p. 145) This increase is not only environmentally unsustainable, but it is also economically unsustainable. Our environment cannot provide enough resources at this rate, so it will cause environmental repercussions as well. How will we cope with this? How do we change our current output levels?
ReplyDeleteThis is an astonishing statistic, and this is most definitely not environmentally sustainable. I do not think it is a matter of coping with this, I think humans are doing a fine job of coping or just living with the problems we are facing now. I think we have lived this way for so long it will be near impossible to change everyones behavior in the amount of time needed for change. I do think, however, we need a change for sure, a solution may be perhaps if engineers focused on developing sustainable technology that supports our environment instead of thinking ahead for technology that can do without an environment all together. We have to get people to see the importance of having a long lasting environment, and that the world will not look the same for our children if we continue to live this way.
DeleteDear Hannah,
DeleteThat statistic is drastic and shows the expansion of the oil industry in our economy. While in the short-term, this number won't change much, but it will be reduced drastically as our country progresses. With the introduction of alternative forms of energy, such as solar, biomass, and electric, forms of transportation will wean off of gasoline and fossil fuels. We already see the prevalence of these trends in our technology today, with increased amounts of cars becoming hybrids and pure electric cars like Teslas. Furthermore, the severity of the situation has been seen on Capitol Hill, and legislators are attempting to resolve the irresponsible resource extraction. Just the other day, Congress introduced legislation which would forever lock 50% of the United States' total gasoline reserve into the ground, to be untouched and not extracted. It is incremental steps like this that will eventually lead to less overall consumption.
“At the heart of how humans live their lives are the cultures they are part of. These cultures—and the norms, stories, rituals, values, symbols, and traditions that they incorporate—guide nearly all of our choices, from what we eat and how we raise our children to how we work, move, play, and celebrate.” (World Watch Institute, Page 113)
ReplyDeleteIn my International Development Policy class, one thing that we aim to look at is the way cultures affect the world around them. Of course, we understand that religion has the ability to influence people’s actions and decisions. Moreover, we also realize that cultures have the ability to influence a person’s behavior-an idea learned in Anthropology classes. I believe the fact above to be true in the context of sustainability because cultures have the ability to influence the stability of the world around them. Cultures can influence social, economic, and environmental changes-for the better or worse. An idea presented in this chapter is that consumerism-at the heart of every human, is essentially destroying us. The more we consume, the more degradation is caused to our world. No matter what culture we find ourselves to be a part of, a common neutrality among us all is the fact that humans consume. Granted, we do not consume at the same levels, but consumerism presents itself to be a problem in a world that needs a solution. Moreover, I must ask, if cultures have the ability to influence behavior, why haven’t more cultures adapted a greener sense of living-considering that it boosts human dignity? Culture affects the way we pursue our lives in every aspect however, why hasn’t it called for a cleaner way of living in 2015? What measures will needed to be pursued in order to reach this?
“In many cultures, funeral traditions reinforce an idea that humans are separate from nature, with humans being embalmed and hermetically sealed in coffins to delay the decaying process.” Worldwatch pg 122
ReplyDeleteI had never stopped to think about the environmental impact that the world’s burial rituals and traditions had on the earth until reading this section of the book. Upon actively thinking about it, it is quite strange how humans delay the decaying process as if they are above nature. So many resources are unnecessarily used in this industry of keeping up these social norms, which when stopped and thought about, does not really make much logical sense. So much money and stress is spent on delaying a process that is only inevitable, not to mention the stress that these rituals put on the earth.
Hello Lauren,
DeleteI absolutely agree with you on how nonsensical these burial practices are. Not only are they financially burdensome, but they are ultimately useless. Just like any other organic material, humans are made to decay and replenish the Earth with nutrients, and essentially life. Having said that, burial practices are certainly traditions and consequently difficult to alter or remove completely. That's not to say that alternatives are not popping up more and more. The other day I read an article about organic cemetery pods that grow trees. These would seem to be much better for the environment as well as more symbolic of what death and decay is really for.
"If funerals celebrated our return to the natural cycle of life and reinforced our place as part of a larger living earth system, this ritual could play an importnat role in nurturing a culture of sustainability... In the US, 3.1 million liters of embalming fluid, 1.5 million tons of concrete, 90,000 tons of steel, and more than 45 million board feet of lumber are used each year in burials, costing the average family about $10,000" (WorldWatch, 122).
ReplyDeleteI was really impressed to see after death care included in the discussion about greening the earth. As an intern for the Prairie Creek Conservation Cemetery, Florida's only certified ecoburial cemetery, it was gratifying to see this niche topic addressed. What would be some good ways for our cemetery to spread the word about what we do?
"Consumer cultures will have to be re-engineered into cultures of sustainability, so that living sustainably feels as natural as living as a consumer does today." (WorldWatch 113)
ReplyDeleteWould this perhaps start with North America?
Brianne-
DeleteI agree with your statements and like the quote you chose to discuss. It is in fact that true that as a society we will need to work on adapting the acts if being sustainable. Currently in North America, we have our set ways to our daily lives that countless of individuals would not like to change because of just peer laziness.
"Of course, not every human consumes at the same level. While the average
ReplyDeleteSoutheast Asian used 3.3 tons of materials in 2008, the average North
American used 27.5 tons—eight times as much" (WorldWatch, p. 114)
This message truly emphasized just how much Americans consume in their daily lives, and this comparison only helped accentuate more of this fact. It also proved that we don't need to consume this amount of materials to flourish. If the average Southeast Asian can survive and flourish with consuming almost eight times less than the amount that the North American consume, it shows us that we as Americans are able to consume just as much. This message also proved how many unnecessary products we consume on in our everyday lives. This, of course, does not lead to a sustainable lifestyle as we must consider what materials we are using and how much of that material we are using.
This is an interesting point that reminds me of something one of our guest speakers Matt Williams pointed out. When calculating our eco-footprints, just living in the United States guarantees a minimum of 3 Earths. This shows how deep our problem runs, and what a skewed perception of the world we possess. We see sustainability issues only from the point of view of reducing our excesses, but we sometimes forget that there is a very large portion of the world whose problems involve shortage and scarcity. It is daunting to think how fundamentally our culture and society will have to change its way of life in order to reestablish a sustainable way of life.
Delete“Indeed, sustainability goes hand in hand with social progress and cultural creativity” (Thiele 150).
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing sustainability, its primary has to do with the community coming together to support society’s human dignity and aid the surrounding environmental area. The way a culture focuses on the combination of its economy and its sustainable development can provide an insight to how they are working to a better future. Nations around the world are working on their social progress in order to become more sustainable; such as Norway and Sweden are focusing on practices that will benefit not only the environment but also their economy. Addition to having a healthier economy and environment area, these countries have a higher value because of their first, innovative steps to sustainable development.
The concept of social progress and cultural creativity relative to economy and sustainable development is one that brings about debate. It appears that the exponential technological and otherwise social development caused by the use of our creative mind has hindered our ability to achieve sustainable development and consequently has been destroying our economy. There are ways in which the global economy could thrive using the advancements that we have had in the last century, but due to international politics and each state looking to protect its sovereignty these are not realistic avenues for sustainable development. This means that each state must create this sustainable development at home first. As Victoria said, Sweden is a great example of where to begin but even Sweden can take more steps toward continuous development.
Delete"The current mainstream model of the global economy is based on a number of assumptions about the way the world works, what the economy is, and what the economy is for. These assumptions arose in an earlier period, when the world was relatively empty of humans and their artifacts. Built capital was the limiting factor, while natural capital was abundant." I believe this quote demonstrates the depicts that it is very important to adjust to our current surroundings rather than create plans that we hope will last forever. It is important that our policies and paradigm evolves as our society, species, and way of life evolves. Do you think we are advancing faster than we are able to adjust to those advancements?
ReplyDeleteAdaptability is the reason that many species have been able to survive even with how much we have altered their environment. And you are right, it is absolutely what we will have to do if we would like to continue to survive in the world that we created for ourselves. But in short, no I don't think so. I we have scratched the surface of what we are capable of technologically speaking and we will see a surge in efficiency in the coming years. The biggest problem is finding a use for our waste which includes our bodies after we die. I see a future where land will no longer be able to be essentially wasted on those that are no longer alive but that is another conversation to have.
Delete"Keep in mind that cultures are always changing in large ways and small—
ReplyDeletesometimes organically and other times intentionally with a push in certain
directions, whether driven by religious, political, technological, or other
forces. " (Worldwatch 116)
This truth gives me the most hope. The simple fact that culture always changes, even though it may not be intentional, or a conscious effort, eventually it will change. Ironically the rise of the west and our consumerist ways may lead to the fall of others. Our lifestyle in many ways is lived at the expense of others. Our technology boom may have provided jobs and growth to asian countries who manufacture them but those countries take the environmental impact of producing them and in the end, much of the cyber waste is sent back there to be picked apart and down-cycled. So the questions that this quote brought to me are: What will be the force that causes a large scale cultural shift? If it is forced, will it be forced out of desperation or a reaction to the conditions or will it happen proactively? Is it already too late to consider any action proactive? And finally, is it too late for this cultural change to happen organically?
I believe what will cause the paradigm shift we need will come from technology. It's not that technology is the answer to our problems, but I think the community and education that the internet has already created has shifted society drastically already. Think about how far we have come as a society with gay rights, with condemnation of confederate pride, with opposition to racial inequality (although we could do way better), and with the opposition towards religious bigotry. I think that people are becoming much more aware of environmental issues and the beauty of the internet is that everyone has access to the facts. No longer can a politician just lie and get away with it, they are instantly fact checked and permanently held to their words. I don't think that politics have changed drastically yet, but I think it will in the next election cycle and beyond. Things are going to change and because of the internet, they will. Let's not forget the issues that technology provides, much like what you said as far as e-waste goes.
Delete“In reality, however, such high levels of consumption often undermine the well-being of high-income consumers themselves, while also deeply undermining humanity’s long term well-being and security. “(114)
ReplyDeleteThe issue with our way of life is that everything seems to be good for us, but in reality it’s horrible. Almost everything about our lifestyle seems to be working against us whether it’s our food, clothing, construction, political, or education system. We continue to try to remove ourselves from our natural environment and away from our natural way of life that we create these ridiculous problems for ourselves and everything on this planet. Not only would creating a sustainable society be healthier for our planet, but everyone would be significantly happier because humans are deeply connected with our environments and we can only flourish if our environment allows us to flourish. Like what was said in Tuesday’s presentation, humans have the greed and technological advancements to sacrifice the health of our planet, but what humans today don’t realize is we are human because of Earth not in spite of it.
This is a really good post although I disagree with some of the things that appear to be working against humans. We make decisions and choices on what we wear and eat, how we vote and where to send our children to school. If you don't like something then don't do it and find an alternative. I think some people get caught up in the whole idea of being trapped by society which is completely garbage because they make their own decisions on how society views them.
DeleteSee, I have a slight disagreement. To say that everything about our lifestyle is completely detrimental to us is a bit of a broad statement. Rather than nagging ourselves, I’d rather take instances of practices which we need, like keeping up production amounts of clothing, and find a way in which we can keep up with demand in a way that isn’t detrimental to the environment; after all, that’s what drives innovation. Humans aren’t perfect creatures and we need to learn from the mistakes we make so I think my problem is with the negative blanket statements rather than the concept of us hurting our environment instead. Education is key and instead of telling children how bad of a creature humans are, I’d rather instill a sense of stewardship and belonging to the natural world and teach lessons learned through mistakes.
DeleteWhile consumerism is being spread more aggressively every year, many cultural
ReplyDeletepioneers are working to spread a culture of sustainability, in both bold
and subtle ways, locally and globally, and often in ways they may not even
recognize as culture changing. The most effective of these pioneers tend to
use dominant societal institutions to normalize an alternative set of practices,
values, beliefs, stories, and symbols (WorldWatch 119). Is spreading the idea of sustainability the most effective by spreading it through consumerism?
I think right now spreading the ideas of sustainability is most effective via consumerism because that is what people respond to. IF we spread the idea of sustainably sourced and produced products then people will catch on the movement and then eventually begin to live their lives more sustainably and with less stuff. The sustainable community definetly has to be creative with how they spread their message in order to make things happen!
DeleteIn my opinion I see this as the problem. Sure many families see sustainability as helping the world but I feel doing things like turning off the lights or making sure to cut the water on a hose is done first and foremost to save money. And similarly large companies are going to use sustainability as either a marketing technique or solely become more efficient in a mindset to save money only. I feel if we focus more on how sustainability affects us and how everyone can make an impact people will feel more inclined to especially if marketers make it seem like a lifestyle shared by a lot of people. As people realize the amount of people in this movement everyone will soon start to move into a similar lifestyle
DeleteI believe that the effectiveness of spreading sustainability through the platform of consumerism depends on the demands that society puts on institutions in order to enact real environmental change. After seeing the words "green" and "sustainable" brightly labeled on consumer products, some people blindly believe that this is enough to justify the purchase of such an item, assuming that the company will make big contributions in maintaining a healthy planet. Companies will read this trend and continue to greenwash products even when they do not do anything to help the Earth. However, if people make a point to follow the actions of the company, and observe the changes enacted by the profits gained, then companies would work harder to actually partake in sustainable practices. Right now I think that spreading sustainability through consumerism is done for the sake of businesses, but if we as consumers start paying attention to what is really going on, we can put enough demand for sustainable practices that companies will have to follow our needs and stop faking environmental awareness. Since consumerism is currently so deeply embedded into our society, I think that if we put in the effort, institutions will be forced to listen to us, as well as the Earth.
Delete"Second, Corporation 2020 will be a community. The loss of community around the world is a palpable result of the dominant economic model. Corporation 2020 can be a modern-day community, tied by a shared culture created by its values, mission, goals, objectives, and governance. It can (and in the best of today’s companies, it already does) recreate the sense of belonging that has been lost due to the forces of modernization and globalization" - world watch 152
ReplyDeleteFunny to think that our loss of such a community based culture is directly affected by our economics and consumer mindset which has totally been exaggerated by advertising. I am glad the future is heading back to its roots. Human dignity will surly be improved.
These vast climatic changes will bring unprecedented heat waves, megastorms,
ReplyDeletemassive droughts, dramatic floods, population displacements, and
the deaths of tens, even hundreds of millions of people—not to mention
political instability.....” Ideally,however, we will not accept this as our likely future but instead will grapple with the main challenge of our times: re-engineering human cultures to be inherently sustainable." (115 World Watch)
Is our society prepared to change for the sake of man kind? what will it take for society to want to change and will it be too late by then?
The question you asked reminds me of what the guest speakers talked about this past Tuesday. Politicians often argue against the facts about global warming, and that our planet doesn’t need to be saved. But as he said, the planet is going to live on with or without human beings. Therefore, like you said, we need to make changes that will both benefit the earth and make it sustainable for humans to live there. However, it is extremely difficult to tell when our society will ultimately make the change it needs to. It seems as if we continue to dig ourselves into a deeper hole without any consideration for the future.
Delete"Put simply, a 2,000-watt lifestyle looks like the way much of the world lives today, or better, but gone are the celebrated entitlements of the high-income lifestyle—79 kilograms of meat a year (2.5 servings a day), nearly daily access to a private car (often with only one passenger), air-conditioned homes, family pets, and
ReplyDeleteunfettered access to flights around the world." WorldWatch 116
This quote captures the main point of what society is losing if we choose to become more sustainable and more environmentally friendly. It might be hard for some people to let go of such luxuries as life without pets and no A/C. I could not imagine life without air conditioning especially in such a warm climate. A sustainable society will be one of the most difficult challenges to date because it requires participation from everyone around the world. So that poses the question, would you be willing to give up minor luxuries in order to help society?
" In the United States, 3.1 million
ReplyDeleteliters of embalming fluid, 1.5 million tons of concrete, 90,000 tons of steel,
and more than 45 million board feet of lumber are used each year in burials,
costing the average family about $10,000, often a significant financial
burden at a distressing time. Groups like The Green Burial Council are
helping to shift this tradition, promoting natural burial—free of chemicals
and of expensive coffins or vaults and in natural cemeteries that provide
parkland for people to enjoy, space for biodiversity, and trees to absorb
carbon dioxide." (Worldwatch 122)
This paragraph was very interesting to me since death has always been such a taboo subject. I never stopped to think about how many resources go into the burial process or the environmental impact of it all. While it would seem as if there are numerous alternatives that are eco-friendly, why do you think that so many people still elect to be buried or embalmed? Is it out of tradition, lack of knowledge, fear of less immortality?
Honestly, this is a great question and really ties into our idea of human dignity and also tradition. Historically, burials denote respect, heading tradition, and in a sense it shows the dead dignity. By paying for an expensive burial, relatives may feel that it is a true closure of that life and what the deceased would have wanted. However, at what point does it just become a waste of resources? Does our sense of obligation towards the dead cloud our sense of judgment? I would probably say both those are factors in the high expense of burials. And unless culture and tradition changes, burials are going to continue to be a popular option.
Delete"The clothing company Patagonia, for instance, recognizing that its continued success depends on the earth and that “the environmental cost of everything we make is astonishing, ”has taken the bold step of encouraging its customers to not even buy
ReplyDeleteits products unless truly needed, encouraging them to instead either buy
used Patagonia products or do without. The company even worked with
eBay to create a ready supply of used Patagonia gear." (WorldWatch, 119).
I find this move taken by Patagonia surprising and inspiring because such a step initially seems counterintuitive to today's business/consumer culture. A company telling its targeted audience to think twice about buying their products for the sake of our planet's health represents the innovative and courageous leadership we need in our society. Though one might think that this statement would mean that the company would make less money, I believe that many people will interpret the message as responsible and necessary, and in turn would be more supportive of the business. Do you think such support would make up for all the profit lost by people buying used products rather than fully priced, new clothing?
"Worse, obesity has reached a point that it is affecting children and
ReplyDeleteeven shortening the average American life span, not to mention costing
the United States $270 billion a year in additional health care costs and
lost productivity." - World Watch pg. 114
When people declare that their decisions to over-consume are their own, and why should anybody else care about other people's diet and exercise habits when it doesn't affect them is simply factually inaccurate. This country has a problem with overvaluing individual freedom over individual responsibility. This is apparent when it comes to obesity. We all pay for it through healthcare costs and otherwise and when it becomes a childhood epidemic as well, which it has. How can we convince people that their personal health isn't just an amoral personal decision when it really is a moral decision which affects all of us, without coming off like a-holes?
"Why are people consuming so much? The answer cannot be simply because
ReplyDeletethey can afford to. In short, it stems from decades of engineering of
a set of cultural norms, values, traditions, symbols, and stories that make it
feel natural to consume ever larger amounts" - Wolrd Watch pg 115
This is actually a thought that has flashed through my head before. With my mom, we have talked about what our ideal homes would be. The first thing that pops into my imagination is a big house with plenty of rooms while my mom things more along the lines or just what is necessary, if anything with an extra room. In having all this extra space, it feels more accomplished yet if it's more than what I need, what purpose does the extra space serve? It becomes a question of where the 'more than what I need' mentality settled into my personal worldview. In order to live in a more sustainable society, we need to gain satisfaction in providing for our necessities rather than feeling satisfied in having 10 times what we really need. What factors could possibly have collaborated towards thinking more is better?
I have the same kind of mindset, even though I try to consume less and take only what I need. It's difficult. We live in a world where every product on the shelves are there for you if you want them. We have been taught that having all of the things you want makes you the best, and if you can't or don't have them, you don't fit in. Every human being wants to fit into society, be liked, appreciated, and feel self-worth. By getting that huge house with lots of rooms, it becomes a symbol of wealth and prosperity, and, in essence, of worth. We are self-serving creatures, and this kind of mindset that "more is better" seems, at least to me, to stem from that. Our first instinct is to compare ourselves to others, and wonder what they think of us, so, we try to make ourselves appear to be as wealthy and prosperous as we can. Oftentimes, this requires grand gestures of extravagance, as well as unnecessary expenditures. We need to move away from this and realize that having the most doesn't make you the best, but caring for ourselves, each other, and the world is more important. I liked your thoughts on this!
Delete"We have reached a stage in the planet's history when we can no longer pretend that economic development based on increased throughput can be sustained, even if it promises cake for all." Thiele. pg 151. paragraph 2
ReplyDeleteMany people have a tendency to take the road most traveled by. Because increasing productivity has been in practice for so long as a way to increase profit and stay in business, people tend to follow that path to find economic success. They are unconcerned with the diminishing resources required for this, as well as the waste and toxins that often comes as a result. How do we balance profit, people, and the planet, while maintaining economic stability? How can we change the status quot, when it has worked for so long and promises benefit, whether it be in the form of cake, or otherwise?
"The central focus of macroeconomic policies is typically to maximize economic growth; lesser goals include price stabilization and full employment. If society instead adopts the central economic goal of sustainable human well-being, macroeconomic policy will change radically. The goals will be to create an economy that offers meaningful employment to all and that balances investments across the four types of capital to maximize well-being. Such an approach would lead to fundamentally different macroeconomic policies and rules." (World Watch pg. 135)
ReplyDeleteIt is apparent that our economic values are unsustainable, so changing our values to be more sustainable could change the way our economy grows. I like how the goals would be to make meaningful employment for all because that will encourage sustainable values for everyone and human dignity, as well as maximizing well being. What are your thoughts on how to change the values of our economy and create meaningful employment?
"McDonald’s did not just create a cheap and tasty food, it effectively targeted
ReplyDeletechildren to get them to eat at McDonald’s early on—shaping their
palate for both the company’s food and the high-sugar, high-salt, high-fat
consumer diet. McDonald’s was one of the earliest companies to market to
children. It created cartoon characters to appeal to kids, including the globally
recognized clown, Ronald McDonald." (WorldWatch, 118)
This really struck me in that you don't typically realize the affect advertising has on you in a daily routine. It's hard to imagine that choices in marketing a product, all the way down to character creation are all deliberate and aimed at a specific audience. With tobacco, there is limits on advertising due to the bad nature of the product. However, there is currently no such thing with foods... do you think legislation should be implemented to curb advertising unhealthy food options to children? Is the advertising to blame for the rising childhood obesity epidemic?
It's really weird to think about this quote. We always say the kids are the future and McDonald's took that to heart and made the kids the future of their business. Fast food is for sure just as unhealthy as cigarettes so yes, there should be laws that regulate how often you children can see a happy face leading them to child hood obesity and bullying. Relating the environment the big corporations that want freedom to run their companies in any way they prefer, even if that involves a little (a lot) of pollution, those companies are Ronald McDonald. They look pretty and they pay you very well, but they'll kill you with water pollution before you know it. McDonald's doesn't really pay well but it sure is a hurtful company.
DeleteI absolutely think that there should be strict regulations on fast food advertisement, especially when it involves targeting children to create "lifetime" customers. I recently watched a documentary titled "consuming kids" that brought to light the aggressive marketing tactics that billion dollar cooperations are using in order to hook children into their products. To me it seems that the purposeful intrusion of a child's mind is a terrible selfish business tactic. Unfortunately however, I think it will ultimately be placed in the hands of the responsible parents that become more educated on this danger to their children, as it would be highly unlikely to end a practice that is backed by so much lobbying power.
Delete“What have people been told that keeps them from becoming excited, that keeps them relatively calm when they view the catastrophic damage they’re inflicting on this planet?” (Ishmael, Page 44)
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this quote it reminded me of all of our own fear masters. When we let our fear masters control our thoughts this lack of concern for the damage occurs. In order to form a response to the damages that are occurring we must overcome our own fear masters. Yet the issue will not be solved until people are woken up to realize that they can conquer their own fear master.
Elizabeth,
DeleteThe quote you chose is complex and thought-provoking. I do agree that the fear master is what is keeping people from seeing that something must be done, and that environmental degradation is solely the responsibility of humans. This means that humans are the only ones to reverse this damage. What a tremendous responsibility to take on. And it's easy for us to say "well I'm not the one cutting down trees. I don't eat meat, so I don't contribute to the unsustainable meat industry" and the list goes on. But we have to stop seeing these problems as "problems society has created" to problems that WE have created because WE are society.
“Growth-based economics is a short-term strategy for accelerated development of production systems and built environments. It is not a long-term solution for making the earth a livable home.” (Thiele, 147)
ReplyDeleteThis quote stood out to me because I believe it makes a very valid point. In our modern economy, many businessman, economists, and politicians are all after making a profit in the short term when they should be focusing on creating a sustainable business or product. But because ½ of newly formed business fail within the first four years, they are under a tremendous pressure to make as much profit as quick as they can. How can we integrate these short-term plans with larger term plans that do not harm our environment? In other words, how can we make sustainability profitable so that business can make a profit and stay in business?
"Growth in material consumption is ultimately unsustainable because of fundamental planetary boundaries, and such growth is or eventually becomes counterproductive (uneconomic) in that it has negative effects on well-being and on social and natural capital." Building a Sustainable and Desirable Economy-in-Society-in-Nature, pg. 128.
ReplyDeleteNature is the planets most valuable resource. Nature encompasses biodiversity which allows organisms to thrive and repopulate. Nature sustains plants and animals which can be utilized as food sources. Nature can also provide resources of substantial value, like wood for construction and pearl jewelry. Because of this commodification of nature, we are taking more than nature can produce to achieve wealth. Though we understand that nature is full of finite resources, we continue to harvest the resources at an unstable rate. Why do we allow this rapid consumption of our environment when we know the ultimate consequences?
“The challenge will be convincing more individuals that further efforts to spread a consumer culture are truly a step in the wrong direction and that the faster we use our talents and energies to promote a culture of sustainability, the better off all of humanity will be.” (Worldwatch 124)
ReplyDeleteI find this quote interesting because it places an emphasis on cooperation to further sustainability, linking an overhaul of the consumerist culture as the solution to unsustainable practices. However, while cooperation does seem to be the root of progress, I find the prospect of all of the countries in the world cooperating for sustainable policy to be infeasible. One of the largest issues is attempting to bridge the divide between developed and developing countries, finding a discussion method that doesn’t seem as if the developed countries are inhibiting progress for all of the other countries. Is it possible for us to usher in cooperation from all of the countries to fight for this, or will countries continue to prioritize their short-term growth over the future of the planet? Furthermore, can we expect consumers of developed countries to abandon their practices? While the consequences of climate change are becoming increasingly evident, the United States has the resources to safeguard against many of the consequences. Will our citizens be willing to change if we have the infrastructure necessary to survive?
I also think this quote is interesting because it places the problem out of context. The sad reality is that people and cultures are just too stuck in their ways and most people are just too lazy to change. I think along with cultural differences, not all developed countries would be willing to pause their advancement in order to work with underdeveloped countries. Greed is another factor that comes into play when talking about corporations and their practices. As long as there is money involved, big corporations will not change their ways. I don't think people are willing to act until the problems personally impact their lives. They don't realize that our actions and talents need to be directed towards prevention and promoting a culture of sustainability.
Delete“We have reached a stage in the planet’s history when we can no longer pretend that economic development based on increased throughput can be sustained, even if it promises cake for all” (Thiele pg 151, para 3).
ReplyDeleteThis quote stands out to me as a clear call to action. However, it’s really astonishing that our society has forced into this “now or never” situation. It seems as if humans, or at least Western culture, have been driven by a need for instant gratification with absolutely no consideration for the future. Because of this, all of us are in the same dire circumstance, not just the perpetuators. The world’s biggest economies are growing at a rate in which there’s no way it can continue to grow without depleting the earth’s resources. And unfortunately, it has come to the point where there’s no feasible way the market can simply just fix itself, as things will naturally go in a “green” direction. We’ve become over reliant on unsustainable forms of food, energy, and commerce. Therefore what can we do to lead our society in a sustainable direction while retaining the human dignity of all?
"If the recommendations of this chapter are implemented—taxation shifted
ReplyDeletetoward resource extraction, corporate leverage limited for those “too big to
fail,” advertising made more accountable, and externalities measured and
disclosed—the new corporations will likely look quite different from those
of today. They will be more responsible, with goals aligned to the communities
and societies that host them." World Watch pg.152
As much as this sounds amazing, how feasible is this really? With the power of corporations in the US could this realistically ever change in the short run?
You raise an absolutely valid point. Corporations do have a disproportionate amount of power today and represent only a small elite. This has been, however, the norm for at least two thousand years now; elites have been controlling power at the populace's cost. I believe however that the answer to that question lies in politics. Not necessarily politics as in its mainstream meaning of government, but politics in the Socratic meaning of the word; the relationships between people. I think technology, especially with the advent of the internet, will play a key role in allowing people to educate and organize themselves, so that we will attain a more equitable society; one that exists for everyone, not just the small elites.
Delete"Ultimately, to create a sustainable human civilization—one
ReplyDeletethat can thrive for millennia without degrading the planet on
which we all depend—consumer cultures will have to be re-engineered into
cultures of sustainability, so that living sustainably feels as natural as living
as a consumer does today" World Watch 113.
In order for this idea of sustainable to become the norm, people need to see outside of their own survival and drive to earn a living for solely themselves. They must begin seeing other human and animal's survival equal to their own. I believe that there is a paradigm shift happening right before our eyes, and people are starting to recognize the importance of connectivity, which will automatically promote conscious decisions on how live without disrupting mother nature's flow. Do you think this ideal is possible in the near future?
"Put simply, a 2,000-watt lifestyle looks like the way much of the world lives today, or better, but gone are the celebrated entitlements of the high-income lifestyle—79 kilograms of meat a year (2.5 servings a day), nearly daily access to a private car (often with only one passenger), air-conditioned homes, family pets, and unfettered access to flights around the world. In truth, these luxuries will no longer be routinely accessible to the vast majority of people in a truly sustainable society, though they may be available as rarer treats, like the once-every-three-years flight to visit his parents that Saul Griffith factored in to his new energy allowance." World Watch 116
ReplyDeleteThis quote caught my attention because it implies the assumption that technology will not advance from current levels. Much of the “entitlements” mentioned could, and probably will, be much more affordable than they are today, both in ecological and monetary terms. For example, solar energy has increasingly become a realistic alternative to fossil fuels. A society fueled by the sun would be able to provide for arguably limitless transportation, be it ground or air. Furthermore, recent advances in nuclear fusion show it can also be a good source of energy in the future. This is not to say that we should not try and reduce our resource use at current technology levels. I must, however, confess that, being a foreigner, I would not like to see my family only once every three years. Do you think we need to drastically change our lifestyles today, or do you think technological improvements will solve, or partially solve, our energy use problems?
Hugo,
DeleteI agree this quote assumes that technology will not advance past its current state. I agree that technology especially in transportation will be crucial in reducing our impact on the planet. The real problem is that agriculture produces more emissions than transportation; travel will eventually become green because technology will make it that way, however with agriculture technology is not necessarily the answer. We just need a huge technological shift away from fossil fuels, which is a lot easier said than done. That would require huge industries to shift towards “green” energy and I am not sure if those people are willing to do that.
“In 2007, São Paulo became the first major city outside the communist world to ban almost all outdoor advertising. In a city with two conflicting identities—it is both the commercial capital of Brazil and the epicenter of gang violence and extensive slums—São Paulo’s Lei Cidade Limpa (Clean City Law) is now considered an unexpected success. Nearly all outdoor advertisements—including billboards, outdoor video screens, and ads on buses—were torn down, and the size of storefront signage was regulated.” – WorldWatch (149)
ReplyDeleteThis article explores ways in which corporations can be transformed into drivers of sustainability. One of the change drivers that the author suggests is breaking the cycle of advertising and consumption. Do you think that Sao Paulo’s unprecedented law banning public advertising is a positive step to reducing consumption culture? Or could it have a negative impact on businesses’ profit margins, and thus negatively impact society as a whole?
"Ultimately, to create a sustainable human civilization—one
ReplyDeletethat can thrive for millennia without degrading the planet on
which we all depend—consumer cultures will have to be re-engineered into
cultures of sustainability, so that living sustainably feels as natural as living
as a consumer does today" (Worldwatch 113). This quote stood out to me because it is straight forward in addressing sustainability in our society. In order for anything to be solved we must first change our consumer culture. It is not possible to achieve sustainability with the way we consume constantly as part of our lifestyles. At this rate, we are consuming the planet faster than imaginable. How would it be possible to change our consumer culture in time to save our planet?
I think the point you bring up is very correct. Can we actually achieve a sustainable culture without changing? We need to reimagine what it means to live in a capitalist society. I think too many people automatically think that they have to buy and buy and buy. In reality this is awful for the world we live in and it's resources. We need to open our eyes and be aware about what we're doing to the planet. We can't just use up all of its resource's and move on. The idea that we will be okay in the end is false. We must change in a way that we see reusing as the same as buying new today. It will take a lot of social change in order to really make an impact on Americans thought process'.
Delete“Once society has accepted the worldview that the economic system is sustained and contained by our finite global ecosystem, it becomes obvious that we must respect ecological limits. This requires that we understand precisely what these limits entail and where economic activity currently stands in relation to them” – WorldWatch Pg. 132
ReplyDeleteThis section of the chapter discusses what a sustainable society would look like and how we could change our society and our economy to be self-sustaining and friendly towards the environment. The problem I see with this statement is that we require change in the near future, and we still do not know enough about our planets limits and how it relates to our activity. For all we know we could’ve already passed it. Do you think it has already been surpassed? Do you think it is possible for a society to be entirely sustainable, from socially to economically, especially in the United States?
It is evident that we have already surpassed the limits of our planet. Every time we choose to degrade an environment in exchange for economic incentive, we are defying the natural limits of our ecosystem. Unfortunately, I don't see anyway of a sustainable society being establishes in the United States, especially with the current paradigm many people in power hold towards the natural world. The quote definitely offers the right approach by recognizing that we must acknowledge the ecological limits. But, there are people in the US that don't even acknowledge that nature holds any ecological limits. This relates to how in Ishmael, Takers believe that nature is something to be manipulated and taken advantage of. They believe the natural world inherently belongs to them to decide what happens to it. As long as there are Takers in power, there will not even be an acknowledgement of the need to shift to a sustainable society.
Delete"First they exterminate their competitors, which is something that never happens in the wild."- (Ishmael, pg. 126)
ReplyDeleteThis quote suggests that humans have violated a law of nature. Ishmael suggests we have broken a natural flow of life by seeking out our competitors and predators to kill them off. Traditionally, the populations of predators(us) adjusts to the amount of prey, but we have killed off competitors and cultivated a system for growing our own food. Therefore, we have no natural population check on us, which explains why we see increased population growth with increased food production. What do you think would be a good strategy to go about fixing this paradox? How can we assure that the more food we produce doesn't lead to an increased global population?
Since all of our predators have been eliminated or are no longer a serious threat, our population will continue to rise. Nothing will control global populations of humans unless a deadly, incurable disease spreads across the globe. No animals will be affecting our populations, so the only things that will are things like disease and food supply. With new technologies being created every day to help with our food production, we will not be short on food for a long time. With the increase of food, population will always increase. There will be nothing stopping it from going up besides disease. The globe could put a limit on how many children a family can have like China did not all too long ago, but no one will ever suggest such a thing because it sounds inhumane. We are stuck with this population increase until a major event stops it, and that won't be for a long while.
Delete“You know very well that for hundreds of millions of you, things like central heating, universities, opera houses, and spaceships belong to a remote and unattainable world. Hundreds of millions of you live in conditions that most people in this country can only guess at. Even in this country, millions are homeless or live in squalor and despair in slums, in prisons, in public institutions that are little better than prisons. For these people, your facile justification for the agricultural revolution would be completely meaningless.” Ishmael pg 218
ReplyDeleteMost of the time when we think about sustainability, we think about how our immediate society can change its ways in order to solve the problem; however, we overlook the millions and millions who live a very different life. We need to address the entire population’s problems, not just tell the wealthy to recycle their abundant resources. In order to become truly sustainable, we need to uphold human dignity, which involves addressing those of us who live in scarcity rather than excess. Part of the problem, as Matt Williams noted, is that there is no money in helping the former.
I completely agree with you Veronica because most people do overlook the fact that a large amount of our population live in scarcity. Most people focus on those with who live in lifestyles of excess, that’s usually the target audience to teach those in this country who should learn about sustainable ways of life, part of that human dignity you were talking about is about helping the people who live in scarcity. Just like Dr. Chandler said that every sustainability problem is first a social problem, and for millions of people living in scarcity we can all agree that it is sustainable to make awareness and to come together to do something to improve the human dignity.
Delete"And yet you do destroy it, each of you. Each of you contributes daily to the destruction of the world...Why don't you stop?" - Ishmael pg. 25
ReplyDeleteIn this excerpt from Ishmael, we see a major concept that hinders our ability to achieve sustainable practices. We as humans know very well the negative consequences of our irresponsible actions, yet we do not change. What more will it take to convince us to change the way we live? Why can't we stop destroying the Earth?
I find this very powerful. I agree that we need to question why we actually destroy our earth. We as humans definitely understand our impact on the earth and don't do anything about it because I feel that they think individually, They don't think that them recycling a bottle will make a difference in our world, but that's because they don't realize that it's most def not if everyone thinks that way, but if we take the initiative then it would be a lot more people making a positive impact rather than the few people who had believed since the beginning. I think the only way we can be convinced to change is when we become desperate and are basically dying off due to our destruction.
Delete“It is clear that a certain degree of serious change in advertising is going to come endogenously—through the changing balance of power between consumer and producer. However, this is an evolutionary process and will take time—several decades perhaps. But what can be done over the next decade, given the urgency of reform in the corporate world?” World Watch page 149
ReplyDeleteI thought this was interesting because it not usually mentioned but advertising does make a significant impact on all of us when it comes to deciding on products we use, advertising does in some ways mold us or expose us certain products that they say we “need” to have. Whether we like it or not advertising makes a difference, even if it is a choice to eat McDonald’s or shopping for organic food at Trader Joe’s.
I agree that the fact that this excerpt talks about the effects of advertising is interesting, but I think that we should all keep in mind the ways that these things effect the decisions made by the public. I think that the way we perceive ourselves in reference to our society also effects the way we carry out our decisions. While shopping for organic foods could be in reference to our health, however it could be simply because a person wants to seem cool. The way that advertising effects people can also be seen in the way the news effects the way people perceive the world.
Delete"At the heart of how humans live their lives are the cultures they are part of. These cultures - and the norms, stories, rituals, values, symbols, and traditions that they incorporate - guide nearly all of our choices, from what we eat and how we raise our children to how we work, move, play, and celebrate." -pg. 113 World Watch
ReplyDeleteThe way the world is designed to function involves heavy reliance upon the culture in which a person is raised, and I am in complete agreement with the point brought up by World Watch in this week’s readings. It is important to understand that beneath all of our decisions, there is the existential drive of “Mother Culture”. As stated in Ishmael the way our minds are wired to work now, is that there is only one way to the good life. This being to succumb to the pressures of consumerism and live through how you can buy, eat and use within your brief lifetime. However, after reading Ernst Becker’s Denial of Death I wonder if people were all more aware of their mortality, if they would allow this to influence the way they lived? Would society make the shift to a sustainable way of living?
Jennifer,
DeleteI think you bring up an important question based on your reading of denial of death. I do think that if people were more cognoscente of not only their own imminent death (however morbid that may sound) but the future deaths of others in their society and worldwide, they might pay more attention to how they are acting in regards to their planet and lives. It’s incredible that many people only care about the comfort of their selves and their own families, but where’s the humanity in all of that? The human dignity? How can you do good for yourself with no regard for the good of others? Maybe if people were more aware of the limited time they have on the planet instead of pushing it to the back of their mind, they would spend the time they had making a difference. Doing something for the good of others. It’s possible to live a comfortable life and help the planet. If only people would recognize that you don’t have to choose one over the other. For at the end of the day we only have the time on the planet we are able to survive and if we limited the use of our resources this time could be a lot longer in the long run for not only our generations both those to follow.
"But given Earth’s weakening capacity to absorb greenhouse gases and
ReplyDeleteother wastes generated in pursuit of the consumer dream, the end of the
consumer culture will come—willingly or unwillingly, proactively chosen
or not—and sooner than we would like to believe." (WW pg.124)
How do you think it will be possible for us to shape consumer culture as we continue into the future? Not nearly enough people are changing their behavioral habits in regards to sustainable consumerism? I feel the only way we can change this culture especially in America will be to implement laws. Do you think there are other options to implement less consumerism in such a consumer fed society?
I believe that the fastest way to shape consumer culture into being more sustainable is through laws, but the question is, how many people will follow those laws? We can create all the policies we want, but it would only create the idea of a large government that would oversee all aspects of one's life, which would cause upheaval. The best way to encourage sustainability efforts is to discourage otherwise. For example, once people realized how bad cigarettes were to smoke, many people quit, and now it is often looked down upon to smoke around others, if at all. This same idea can be applied to when people first stopped littering. We need to get in the societal mindset so people will act and others will react.
DeleteJaneshly Algarin
WorldWatch: Is Sustainability Possible?
ReplyDelete“Worse, obesity has reached a point that it is affecting children and even shortening the average American life span, not to mention costing the United States $270 billion a year in additional health care costs and lost productivity…Obesity has added an extra 5.4 percent of human biomass to the planet—15.5 million tons of human flesh—which means that people are eating enough extra food each year to feed an additional 242 million people of healthy weight.”
We usually categorize obesity as a social or medical issue, yet this book brings obesity and its societal as well as economic aspects into light. This ties back to a theme we learned early on in the year pertaining to awareness of others, and communal efforts to enact sustainability. When you crave food and eat more than you should, the first thing you think about is satisfying your desires. However, WorldWatch brings up the point that your individual actions do in fact affect people other than yourself. All that extra food that was eaten to cause obesity could have feed hundreds of healthy people. This is just an example of the many ways we over consume in developed societies, and how difficult it would be to actually instill sustainability in everyone’s lives.
I really love that you caught this different perspective on obesity. To add to what you have written, I think obesity has ties to psychology. I did my book report on Ernest Becker's Denial of Death, and in this novel Becker spends a great deal of time examining the human fear of death. To repress this fear humans can take many different routes; from moderate heroism to neurosis. I think people with problems of over consumption (just people that under consume willingly) are using this over eating as a mechanism to repress emotional, environmental, or fear of death problems. If we address the middle circle of the 5 Faucets (Chandler), human dignity, we can reduce over consumption, and waste less food.
Delete"'Or a global community that consist of nothing but rice and humans?' 'I'd have to think that a community like that would be ecologically fragile. It would be highly vulnerable. Any change at all in existing conditions, and the whole thing would collapse.'" -Ishmael pg. 129-130
ReplyDeleteIsmael brings a very good point to light. While us humans are causing rapid mass extinctions, we can not be stuck relying on one food source. If any environmental conditions cause the food source to go out of whack, then the human population will be in serious trouble. It is unsafe for us to live a life that has so little diversity. What do we need to do to make sure that something like what the quote mentions does not happen?
"Moving away from consumerism...will undoubtedly be the most difficult part of the transition to a sustainable society." (WorldWatch 115)
ReplyDeleteThis argument is very true in regards to todays society. All to often people are ready to throw out what they have for the next best thing and automatically move on to the next. Can we really achieve sustainability without changing from a consumerism economy?
The unfortunate situation we find ourselves in is that we as a society are so comfortable and set in our ways that we are too blind to see our ways are destroying our only home. It is going to take a major movement, maybe after a disaster, to get people to open their eyes and realize we must move away from consumerism. The world economies are so global unfortunately that a switch from consumerism would be very costly and most people just choose to live in denial then face this kind of change. I think eventually we as s society will be able to move away from consumerism but unfortunately I feel it will only come have after some natural disasters or stresses on our life begin to happen.
DeleteMichael, I don't think sustainability is possible if we continue feeding our consumerist economy. The cultural, political, and economical paradigms need to shift in order to see a change for the better. Our economy is creating ecological debts when we focus on its growth instead of the well-being of the people. We are exhausting our nonrenewable resources, exploiting the renewable ones, and surpassing the tolerance margins of our ecosystems faster than they can replenish themselves. And we, as a society, are blinded from all this by flashy commercials and advertisements for cheap, futile, and totally unnecessary things. We are so consumed by consumerism, we have shifted our focus on accumulating more and on economic growth. It may be while before our focus shifts back to the source of the issue, which is the way we've formed our economy.
DeleteHali McKinley Lester:
ReplyDelete“I no longer think of what we’re doing as a blunder. We’re not destroying the world because we’re clumsy. We’re destroying the world because we are, in a very literal and deliberate way, at war with it” (Quinn 130).
This quote illuminates a really important issue with sustainability. When people talk about environmental crises, it often is portrayed that humans are in conflict with the environment. It can seem like we have to fight against environmental degradation, instead of living in harmony with the environment. With this quote, he refuses to accept the excuse that people are harming the environment by accident. Rather, we have a mentality that are human comforts cannot coexist with a thriving environment. We need to shift this way of thinking so that we aren’t destroying the world in conflict with us but live with the understanding that we can have a mutually beneficial relationship with the environment. Do you agree that we’re at war with our world, and if so, how can we change this mentality?
Thank you for bringing this up Hali as you introduce an interesting point.
DeleteI tend to disagree with this quote and the idea that as a people we are "in a very literal and deliberate way at war with [our earth]." To me this is a very damaging way to look at the position we find ourselves in as it makes it look as if we as a people want to destroy out world and do not care about fixing the areas where we are unsustainable. Rather than think of people as in a deliberate war with the earth, a more proactive approach would be to examine the areas where we find ourselves acting in a non-sustainable way (producing unnecessary waste when we should be reusing, recycling etc.) It is of my opinion that a more optimistic and hopeful attitude would be more effective then simply saying that humanity is deliberately trying to kill the world we live in.
"'Would you be more comfortable if we used these terms, civilized and primitive?'
ReplyDeleteYes I suppose I would be, but only because I'm used to them. Takers and leavers is fine with me.'"
-Ishmael pg. 39
The idea of takers and leavers really struck me. Referring to primitive people as leavers really changes the often negative connotation of the word 'primitive.' And using the word 'takers' for more modern people well represents the unsustainable 'me' attitude many people have today. My question to you is do you think we should adopt more attributes of the lifestyles of primitive people in order to live a more sustainable lifestyle? Eg. Growing our own food.
Carson,
DeleteJust as life is a beautifully crafted complex Event, so are the solutions that we must use to amend for our wrongs. Using practices from the “leavers” is critically important to incorporate into our lifestyle, but that doesn’t mean abandon all of the takers’ practices either. Growing our own food, using community gardens, buying food locally, are all sustainable practices that— if used in several small-scale communities— could make an enormous impact on the way we live and the way we offset the damage done to depleted ecosystems due to harmful agricultural practices. That being said, it is important to remember that Holistic Sustainability is about including everyone into the conversation, and include aspects of both the “leavers” and the “takers”.
Paola,
DeleteI agree with you, and I want to clear something up that was discussed in the book. "Primitive" does not define the Leaver lifestyle, and neither did agricultural production, rather, the Leaver lifestyle was to live "by the gods", or at the mercy of nature. The Taker lifestyle "thwarted" nature by producing more than what they needed and saved it for some other time, in efforts to "snub the gods". Therefore, the Leaver lifestyle would be to live within your means, as individuals, members of a community and members belonging to the world. The methods are not what need to be completely lost or adopted, it is the ideology that is important; the fundamental change that has to happen is that we cannot continue our "Taker mindset". We can no longer go on believing that the world belongs to man, and instead we must think and believe that man belongs to the world. This concept became so precious to me personally, it's how I've felt my whole life and just now it's been put into words so eloquently.
“Why are people consuming so much? The answer cannot be simply because
ReplyDeletethey can afford to. In short, it stems from decades of engineering of
a set of cultural norms, values, traditions, symbols, and stories that make it
feel natural to consume ever larger amounts—of food, of energy, of stuff.
Policymakers changed laws, marketers and the media cultivated desire, businesses
created and aggressively pushed new products, and over time “consumers”
deeply internalized this new way of living.” (WorldWatch, 115)
I picked this quote because it made me uncomfortable. While I agree with WorldWatch that major corporations and big businesses have influenced society to consume without discretion, we cannot simply point fingers and lay the blame on big business and upscale policy makers. It takes courage to go against the current, but big business was not the sole perpetuator of consumerist practices- it takes two parties to consume, the vendor and the vendee. Consumerism was not instigated it was fomented, people with natural self interests accumulated “stuff” and businesses reciprocated the sentiment with more “stuff”. To say that extreme consumerism stemmed from the top down is a sticky statement to make since it is never the case that one sparked the other, but rather a cycle that led down a slippery slope.
"Keep in mind that cultures are always changing in large ways and small— sometimes organically and other times intentionally with a push in certain directions, whether driven by religious, political, technological, or other forces. " pg 118 world watch
ReplyDeleteThis quote displays that the world is a huge place that is always changing. Different factors cause different parts of the world to change, sometimes good and sometimes bad. Is it the changes caused by the constant force for something new that cause us to be so un sustainable? Is our need for a brand new beginning a cause for the worlds end?
"We know what happens if you take the Taker premise, that the world belongs to man. Yes, that's a disaster. And what happens if you take the Leaver premise, that man belongs to the world? Then creation goes on forever." Ishmael, page 240.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I wish I could have quoted all of chapters 10, 11, and 12, if not the whole book. But these words carry the brunt of the message that is meant by these chapters and mainly tells the outcome of the two premises of life, Takers and Leavers. This is such an important distinction to make because it truly opens the mind to the reality of the "story" and of human history. All this time, living as though man controls and owns the world, as only brought destruction and suffering, but because we've decided to use this premise that owning the world is the "one-right way to live", we've gone along with it without questioning ourselves. It's astonishing to think that those of us that realize what we are doing to the planet knew that it was bad, but in all honesty, I didn't know the reason why we had thought this was ok for so long before now. This book needs to be read by everybody, because it is just simply life changing and it truly makes you think of the world differently. I think that because we know of these things, it is our responsibility to become an "Ishmael" and become part of and spread this Leaver premise. I'm curious as to any of your thoughts on the book and what this philosophy, this wisdom, means for humanity.
Elizabeth "Rosy" Roberts
DeleteAnthony, I just want to say first off that I wish I could flat out mirror the sentiment found in the first two thirds of your post. Our basic cultural understanding of possessing the world seems bizarre and backwards to me; how can any one person lay claim over something so ancient, so natural and beautiful? I don't mean to sound like a stereotypical hippie, but the more I think about it the less natural and right modern ownership seems. In other words, consuming with such greed and with such a lack of self control -has- only cause destruction, chaos, and degradation. There is a huge need for a paradigm shift for the furthered success of agents of sustainability.
“But consumerism is not a viable cultural paradigm on a planet whose
ReplyDeletesystems are deeply stressed and that is currently home to 7 billion people,
let alone on a planet of 8–10.6 billion people,” WorldWatch pg. 113
I like this quote because it is very straightforward. we were already explained to that consumerism is based on the principle that you must get more goods at the expense of resources. The fact, that we are taught since middle school, is that resources aren’t infinite and so we are living a life of consumerism where we are constantly using up resources that we know are not infinite. This cannot continue as we will eventually ruin the only home we have and so I wonder how long it will take for the world, especially the United States to make a vast social and economic change.
Elizabeth "Rosy" Roberts
ReplyDelete"In a majority of societies today, consumerism feels so natural that it is hard to even imagine a different cultural model. Certain goods and services—from air conditioning and large homes to cars, vacation travel, and pets—are seen as a right, even an entitlement" (Worldwatch, 136).
This brings up an interesting concept-- that of the entitled consumer of capitalist culture, and his 'unknowing' impact on the world around him. I do think this is an issue which plagues most of America (and the supposedly developed world). People have made claims that it's impossible to rid the world of capitalistic influence and it's a better idea to just go with the flow and submit to the system, I disagree with the idea. I think this generation will be one to revolutionize attitudes toward economic systems, as well as environmental attitudes. Is that naive and hopeful? Most definitely, but I don't think it's unfounded, and I don't think it's out of the question. Just look at the active involvement the sustainability studies program, and so many green initiative groups have produced within the UF community in the past several years alone!
In the field of sustainability it is commonplace to hear "local" as a solution in agriculture and energy. In agriculture localization is good because it teaches people more about where food comes from, produces fresher food, and is immediately accessible. In bio fuels, growing your own energy can create independence. In Thiele's novel, Sustainability , he asserts "to the extent that more resources are required and more waste generated when small, local businesses produce goods and services, sustainability is not well served by localizing (166)". This quote directly opposes the general view that "local is good" in sustainability. To me this shows that we must question knowledge, not willingly accept the general consensus as true. If we analyze the knowledge in light of what we are applying it to, we can largely reduce negative outcomes of otherwise blind decision making (blind in that individuals often time unthinkingly apply general knowledge).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"In a majority of societies today, consumerism feels so natural that it is hard to even imagine a different cultural model." (Worldwatch, 115)
ReplyDeleteI believe in this a lot. I feel that today's American citizens are so consumed with our possessions that we have drifted from our previous cultures . I have notice the cultural changes as I have grown up. I noticed that traditions have been lost and that it seems normal still, but that we have actually just drifted immensely from our original traditions and beliefs. I feel that a lot of this is due to globalization and increase in technology, also that it will never go back to what it was, but I do think that eventually if we start noticing the downfalls, we will be able to change things and be aware. My question is that do you believe that consumerism is leading to a downfall in our society?
“The extinction of countless species, the pollution of water, land, and air, the devastation of forests, the erosion and desertification of land, the depletion of sea life, the paving over of green space, and global climate change are all products of the way we run our economies.” (Thiele, 142)
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting to see that Thiele connected all the big issues the planet and humanity are facing to our economies. It shows that we live in a complex web of life founded on interdependence and resilience, which in turn affects human dignity. Many of us in developed societies fail to make these connections because we are consumed by consumerism. This issue is also mentioned in the World Watch Report and in David Orr’s Hope is an Imperative. Thiele also mentions that “the goal of economic life is not to maximize output, income, or spending, but to achieve the greatest amount of well-being with the minimal amount of consumption” (Thiele, 166) through appropriately scaled economies that are controlled on the local levels. Do you agree? If not, what economic system do you think works best for a sustainable future?
"The United States, for example, now suffers from an obesity epidemic in which two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. This leads to significant increases in mortality and morbidity from a variety of chronic, diet-related diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and several forms of cancer" (Worldwatch 114) It seems that it would be impossible to deny the fact that the food we are eating is making us sick. Every where you turn there is a study that is proving our diets are causing heart disease, diabetes , and all other ailments.Why do you think that we continue to consume these foods, when we know it is killing us? should our internal fear of mortality point us in the opposite direction? Why is this one thing exempt from these fears?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your great and social service about Clinical waste. I like your job very much. I always thinks this system and service very need for worldwide. Some days ago i have gotten this related site and has many only support.
ReplyDeleteClinical Waste Gainesville
What a fantabulous post this has been. Never seen this kind of useful post. I am grateful to you and expect more number of posts like these. Thank you very much. ghee butter private label
ReplyDelete